I guess people are just confused by the Civil Liberties part of their name, or perhaps by their stated mission, "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States."
I agree that the NRA does a pretty good job of defending the 2nd Amendment, just like my girlfriend does a great job of doing the dishes. That doesn't mean I don't help her out from time to time.
Anyway I don't actually sit in my chair, I tend to curl up into it, and essentially I sit on one leg at a time and lean to the left or right depending on which leg is under me. I also am a big fan of occasionally placing both feet up on the APC under the desk and leaning from side to side.
That's great if you're female or a gymnist. If I tried to do that, my knee and/or hip would literally dislocate from the lateral strain. For the rest of us, standing up and stretching at least once an hour should suffice. Smokers obviously have this down pat.
Today... how many names do you know that had anything to do with developing the technology for space flight? Zilch...
Wernher von Braun and Robert Goddard spring immediately to mind. Just because you happen to be ignorant of history doesn't mean everyone is. The names Pascal, Newton, Pythagorus, Bernoulli, and Einstein are enshrined in history, familiar to every schoolchild, and barring the total collapse of civilization, it's not likely they'll be forgotten in another 1k or 10k years either.
It's true that names are becoming less prominent in modern society, but only because they've been replaced by organizations and businesses. John Q. didn't invent the Core 2 Duo processor -- Intel did. Whether or not that trend continues remains to be seen.
If someone found the cure to cancer, that knowledge and application is NOT their own property.
Yes it is. You can wax philosophical all day, but the point of the matter is that IF someone created a cure for cancer, they could just as easily keep it to themselves as share it, and granting a limited monopoly for their invention is a perfectly reasonable compensation for their choice to disclose it. If I had the choice of saving only my friends and family, or saving everyone equally, I'd probably be biased toward the former. If I just hated people in general, maybe I'd keep it to myself and laugh. Patents are a decent mechanism for balancing self interest with public interest. Public interest may override self interest in theory, but in practice it's not always that simple.
Not "bad for broadcasters," just a necessary change. Sure, they could stick with SD equipment for a while, but if they do, other companies will come in and replace them. They may think they can't afford HD, but what they really can't afford is to stay SD. It's no different from the change from B&W to color 50 years ago.
Now it may be true that the advertisers are not willing to pay a premium to air on HD channels or during HD broadcasts, however it is certainly true that they will pay more to reach more eyeballs. As HD becomes more ubiquitous and viewers have the choice between SD and HD programming, they will favor the latter. Some people will say they don't care, as long as the show is good, but it's all relative. Mono recordings worked just fine for a hundred years, but once stereo became readily available, there was no turning back. My HDTV is "only" 720p, and the difference is so remarkable that I'll go out of my way to spend 10+ hours downloading a 10-20G version of something in HD rather than watch it in SD or highly compressed HD. BBC's "Planet Earth," for example, should be the flagship HDTV content displayed on every showroom floor. Even downscaled from 1080 to 720, it's breathtaking, and a DVD looks like garbage after that.
So feel free to try to stick with SD. It may work for a year, or maybe two, but if you want to stay in the business of broadcasting, your content had better be good enough, or niche enough (like the AM audience), to keep its market. That's entirely possible for networks like CBC I suppose, but in the US, the networks just can't afford to lag behind. So quit your whining and move to HD, because other networks will, and they'll take your viewers with them.
Once the general perception shifts from "gotta get home, Lost is on soon", to "I'll download it this weekend/I'll wait for the DVD", TV networks as we know them are dead.
Except that if nobody watches TV, there will be no "Lost" to download this weekend/wait for the DVD. (Although I'd venture a guess that exponentially more people use a VCR/PVR to record shows anyway.) TV won't "die" until there's both a viable distribution method to replace it, and an unmarketable remaining audience -- something which will take decades, if ever, to achieve. A substantially larger number of people still watch TV than even have internet access, let alone those with access but lacking the savvy to download and play videos. That your extremely limited sample (friends/peers) of people is gravitating toward a particular method of content aquisition says nothing for the millions of grandmas, soccer moms, laborers, etc. Further, by your logic, radio would already be dead. People don't always know what they want, and sometimes they just want to browse (channel surf) until they find something they like.
They are more Xenophobic than any other country I could imagine.
Well, especially if you're Chinese, although it's sort of a good idea to avoid even the appearance of wrongdoing if you're a resident alien in any country.
Sorry, I don't find Wikipedia to be an authoritative source of definitions.
nation n.
1. A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country.
2. The territory occupied by such a group of people: All across the nation, people are voting their representatives out.
nation 1. a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own: The president spoke to the nation about the new tax.
Main Entry: nation Function: noun 1 a (1) : NATIONALITY 5a (2) : a politically organized nationality (3) : a non-Jewish nationality b : a community of people composed of one or more nationalities and possessing a more or less defined territory and government c : a territorial division containing a body of people of one or more nationalities and usually characterized by relatively large size and independent status
Also, just because there's not a law against something doesn't mean there are no consequences or disincentives. If killing was legal, for example, I'm pretty sure that killing someone would still have (un)civil consequences. See also: quid pro quo.
Slashdot Mirror
Boldly stated in precursive print.
Then you've come to the wrong place, sir.
The bad news: It's a Trick Pony.
What's with all the legalese?
it would be wise to ape the development of the internet.
ape is a verb the way sick is a compliment.
I guess people are just confused by the Civil Liberties part of their name, or perhaps by their stated mission, "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States."
I agree that the NRA does a pretty good job of defending the 2nd Amendment, just like my girlfriend does a great job of doing the dishes. That doesn't mean I don't help her out from time to time.
FYI, I just tried sitting at 270 degrees, figuring if 90 was better and 180 is great, then 270 must be awesome. Anyway, I highly disrecommend it.
Anyway I don't actually sit in my chair, I tend to curl up into it, and essentially I sit on one leg at a time and lean to the left or right depending on which leg is under me. I also am a big fan of occasionally placing both feet up on the APC under the desk and leaning from side to side.
That's great if you're female or a gymnist. If I tried to do that, my knee and/or hip would literally dislocate from the lateral strain. For the rest of us, standing up and stretching at least once an hour should suffice. Smokers obviously have this down pat.
Not to mention sweatshop workers, seated on benches for 16 hours a day.
I was referring to radio and recorded music. Sorry for the ambiguity.
Today... how many names do you know that had anything to do with developing the technology for space flight? Zilch...
Wernher von Braun and Robert Goddard spring immediately to mind. Just because you happen to be ignorant of history doesn't mean everyone is. The names Pascal, Newton, Pythagorus, Bernoulli, and Einstein are enshrined in history, familiar to every schoolchild, and barring the total collapse of civilization, it's not likely they'll be forgotten in another 1k or 10k years either.
It's true that names are becoming less prominent in modern society, but only because they've been replaced by organizations and businesses. John Q. didn't invent the Core 2 Duo processor -- Intel did. Whether or not that trend continues remains to be seen.
If someone found the cure to cancer, that knowledge and application is NOT their own property.
Yes it is. You can wax philosophical all day, but the point of the matter is that IF someone created a cure for cancer, they could just as easily keep it to themselves as share it, and granting a limited monopoly for their invention is a perfectly reasonable compensation for their choice to disclose it. If I had the choice of saving only my friends and family, or saving everyone equally, I'd probably be biased toward the former. If I just hated people in general, maybe I'd keep it to myself and laugh. Patents are a decent mechanism for balancing self interest with public interest. Public interest may override self interest in theory, but in practice it's not always that simple.
So what happens when one of the experts comes up with an even better solution?
Oh, SHOPPING!!! I had an entirely different mental image of Cyber Monday.
Oh what the hell. A/S/L plz.
Not "bad for broadcasters," just a necessary change. Sure, they could stick with SD equipment for a while, but if they do, other companies will come in and replace them. They may think they can't afford HD, but what they really can't afford is to stay SD. It's no different from the change from B&W to color 50 years ago.
Now it may be true that the advertisers are not willing to pay a premium to air on HD channels or during HD broadcasts, however it is certainly true that they will pay more to reach more eyeballs. As HD becomes more ubiquitous and viewers have the choice between SD and HD programming, they will favor the latter. Some people will say they don't care, as long as the show is good, but it's all relative. Mono recordings worked just fine for a hundred years, but once stereo became readily available, there was no turning back. My HDTV is "only" 720p, and the difference is so remarkable that I'll go out of my way to spend 10+ hours downloading a 10-20G version of something in HD rather than watch it in SD or highly compressed HD. BBC's "Planet Earth," for example, should be the flagship HDTV content displayed on every showroom floor. Even downscaled from 1080 to 720, it's breathtaking, and a DVD looks like garbage after that.
So feel free to try to stick with SD. It may work for a year, or maybe two, but if you want to stay in the business of broadcasting, your content had better be good enough, or niche enough (like the AM audience), to keep its market. That's entirely possible for networks like CBC I suppose, but in the US, the networks just can't afford to lag behind. So quit your whining and move to HD, because other networks will, and they'll take your viewers with them.
We have to duel core laptops??? So be it. En garde!
Once the general perception shifts from "gotta get home, Lost is on soon", to "I'll download it this weekend/I'll wait for the DVD", TV networks as we know them are dead.
Except that if nobody watches TV, there will be no "Lost" to download this weekend/wait for the DVD. (Although I'd venture a guess that exponentially more people use a VCR/PVR to record shows anyway.) TV won't "die" until there's both a viable distribution method to replace it, and an unmarketable remaining audience -- something which will take decades, if ever, to achieve. A substantially larger number of people still watch TV than even have internet access, let alone those with access but lacking the savvy to download and play videos. That your extremely limited sample (friends/peers) of people is gravitating toward a particular method of content aquisition says nothing for the millions of grandmas, soccer moms, laborers, etc. Further, by your logic, radio would already be dead. People don't always know what they want, and sometimes they just want to browse (channel surf) until they find something they like.
Not every PC has built-in tv-readable outputs you know.
;)
Sure they do.. just not every TV has VGA inputs.
No way, that's been my sig for years. Just look at any other Slashdot post I've ever made.
As someone else said, there's Win-R, but you can also replace the "Run" item on the Start menu, for whatever reason.
d ows-vista-secret-3-bringing-back-start-run.aspx
http://blogs.msdn.com/tims/archive/2006/09/18/win
What do you mean destined to become?!?
They should try ergonomic peripherals.
They are more Xenophobic than any other country I could imagine.
Well, especially if you're Chinese, although it's sort of a good idea to avoid even the appearance of wrongdoing if you're a resident alien in any country.
Sorry, I don't find Wikipedia to be an authoritative source of definitions.
nation
n.
1. A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country.
2. The territory occupied by such a group of people: All across the nation, people are voting their representatives out.
nation
1. a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own: The president spoke to the nation about the new tax.
Main Entry: nation
Function: noun
1 a (1) : NATIONALITY 5a (2) : a politically organized nationality (3) : a non-Jewish nationality b : a community of people composed of one or more nationalities and possessing a more or less defined territory and government c : a territorial division containing a body of people of one or more nationalities and usually characterized by relatively large size and independent status
Also, just because there's not a law against something doesn't mean there are no consequences or disincentives. If killing was legal, for example, I'm pretty sure that killing someone would still have (un)civil consequences. See also: quid pro quo.
Ralph Lauren installed a 67-in. touch-screen display that allows passersby to purchase any item
Nothing like having your CC# and details presented on a 67" display.