Actually, you are spinning the argument by misrepresenting the parent's point.
You are arguing that the application software is completely agnostic. This is true, but ultimately irrelevant. The software wasn't sued, Newzbin (the company) was.
The parent is correctly arguing that while the application software is completely agnostic, the people running that software knew damned well what that software was indexing and, in fact, pointed it out explicitly in their user guides and marketing as a feature.
I suspect that you would naturally say that that file is about 17 gigs. Actually, it is 16 GiB exactly.
However, just looking at the file, no one would ever instinctively say that file.big is 16 GiB. The reality is that base-10 is what people naturally use and so it makes sense for the user interface to reflect that.
Well, it really depends on your point of view and what you define as the "King of Scotland" and what you define as "the Brits".
If, for example, you define the "King of Scotland" as Wales and any single attempt as "the Brits", you may well have a point. But if you define "successful website" as "the Brits", then Wales's experience matches very well.
If we were to expand upon this, I'm pretty sure that the King of Scotland didn't attack the Brits exactly the same way each time. He tried different ways (lunch site, chinese hack spawn, nupedia) to defeat the Brits until he succeeded.
Do not attribute to malice what might be more easily attributed to being mistaken.
but whatever gave you the idea that I am kind and patient to liars, bullies, and thieves?
Nothing at all. However, to assume that someone who has a different reading of the situation is a "liar" is not exactly the paragon of intellectual honesty either. Please stop being a self-righteous dick if you want us to take you seriously.
I'm sorry.. but no. Not acceptable behavior. I'm willing to listen to reasoned debate over the facts, but when you come out of the gate with an ad hominem attack and accuse someone who disagrees with you to be a shill for your opponent, you seriously undermine your credibility and come off as exactly the "biased legal reporter" you've just been accused of being.
Interesting, maybe. However, if you think about the even HIGHER influx of unemployed soldiers that occurred after WWII in 1945 -- after Keynesian economics took a firm hold -- there wasn't any depression at all. In fact, there was a period of economic prosperity called "the long boom"... and literally gave birth to our generation of baby boomers. How cool is that?
Between choosing a pre-Keynesian period where there was a short 18 month depression versus a post-Keynesian period of 25 years of prosperity (ending when Monetarism took over from Keynesian theories in the early 70's), I think I'll choose the latter.
By fall 1921 the depression was over." held true, but I can't even begin to comprehend what could you possibly mean by that.
He means exactly what he says. Before the "Great Depression" that started in 1929, there was another one that started in January 1920 and recovered about 18 months later in the summer of 1921. However, where commodore64_love went wrong was in regards to the cause. The end of WWI brought back 1.6 million newly unemployed ex-soldiers back into the workforce, which, for a short time, shocked the economy. To compare the Depression of 1920 to what is happening today isn't really valid at all.
People still drink and drive, but at much lower rates than before.
[citation needed]
Drunk driving fatalities have steadily decreased over the years.
Correlation does not equal causation. Are the number of drunk driving ACCIDENTS less? The answer is no. In 1983, there were about 43,900 drunk driving related accidents. In 2005, there were about... 43,400 drunk driving related accidents. No real change. Source: http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html
The reason the number of FATALITIES have gone down is because vehicle safety has gone up, not because drunk driving has decreased.
Forfeit your license, your car, and spend a couple months in jail.
You are right! There used to be a time when people used to drink alcohol and drive their cars. Then new laws came about that made is so that you'd lose your license and spend a few months in jail. After that, no one ever drove while drunk anymore. Problem solved!
just ban cell phones entirely
They tried that with alcohol too! (From 1920 to 1933) It also worked like a champ! No one ever drank alcohol and crime sunk to all-time lows.
But.. you see.. it's their store. They paid for it. They can choose what they want to sell.
If the device is tightly bound to the store and you knew that ahead of time (as well you should have), then it's rather your fault for purchasing the device, isn't it. Caveat emptor, and all that.
Apparently it's not their machine either, as they lease the hardware from someone else. I asked them to pull the primary drive in the system and overnight it to me and bill me for it, and they refused, stating that it is leased equipment and they do not own it.
Okay.. so now you admit you don't even own the DRIVE. Even better. Sorry, but my conclusion is that no matter what agreements your hosting provider may have with others, YOU are the one in the wrong here -- not them.
Have them burn the data (which you more than likely own) onto a CD/DVD, then host it yourself since you claim to be so much more competent then they are.
I can't give them a limited account, because they've locked me out of accessing my own machine, demanding I give them the root password before they hand access back to me.
....however, from another post you let the truth slip out
they moved my drive to a different chassis, with completely different hardware, and are asking for the root password so they can reconfigure everything to coincide with that hardware change (...LATER...) When they migrated it from Savvis to some datacenter in Dallas 2 months ago.....
So you openly admit the machine IS NOT YOURS. You are essentially keeping them from their own machine, which I find unethical. I can't blame them for taking matters into their own hand and rebooting the system into single-user mode and locking you out until you play nice.
Stop being a jerk and cooperate with the owners of the machine you are renting or take your data elsewhere.
The thing that I can't get over is that Chase is not required to do anything at all. Chase might not have gone about it the best possible way, but they did give a lot of money to charities, which they are under no obligation to do. I can't help but feel a little embarrassed for people who complain over how someone else gives their money away to charities.
Why can't we at least look on the bright side and be thankful that there are charities out there that now have more funds than they had before, rather than whining like spoiled children that they didn't do it they way we wanted them to?
Slander and libel both require "publication". That is the one defamer must communicate to persons who likely know the defamed and the communication is likely harm the reputation of the defamed.
- If it is not published to third parties, it is not defamation. - If it is published only to third parties who have no clue to the defamed is, it is not defamation. (i.e. you can't defame the anonymous.) - If it can not harm the reputation of the defamed, it is not defamation (i.e. You can't easily defame Charles Manson, for example.)
DMCA takedown notices are generally not published by the one issuing them and fails on the first bullet.
Yes... two centuries of a stable government has provided among the highest standards of living and opportunity, but you'd rather throw that away for a government that gets bloodily overthrown every few years such as the paradises that are Afghanistan... and Somalia... and Haiti.....
You, sir, are a complete moron who has no idea how nice you have it and how bad unstable governments really are.
With very rare exception, television shows are renewed in public and cancelled in private. Since this is a VERY public thing at Comic-Con, the conclusion is foregone. If the cast were fired live on stage, agents would be filing lawsuits on behalf of their humiliated clients within seconds and the executive would be lynched in the hallway. The audience, who would obviously be ticked off, would resent FOX. Why send an executive on a PR mission to intentionally piss off your viewers and draw the ire of the SAG?
So, here's the result: Everyone makes nice, and the show is renewed with the original cast. There might even be a movie deal to up the ante. If there was any doubt about this, there would be no Comic-Con thing at all.
I'm sorry, but YOU originally started this thread by talking about pioneering. Your exact words were:
Keeping up is one thing, pioneering is another.
Starting a business and pioneering have absolutely nothing to do with other. People create businesses every day that don't pioneer a damned thing. People pioneer all the time working for pre-existing businesses, even their own.
I'm sorry if I can't keep up with your ever-shifting sands. Are you talking about pioneering or creating businesses? Are you talking about IT in general or just a few websites (which is a small subset of "IT")?
What IT sectors are more important than the ones I listed
A few websites make up the sum of "IT Sectors"? Oh wow. You really do have a very narrow world-view.
Well okay then, let's try these on for size. The Altair Microcomputer - Ed Roberts in his mid-thirties The Java programming language - James Gossling, mid-thirties. The Internet - Several people, all in the 30's and 40's -- including Vint Cerf, now VP at Google C - K&R, thirties Ruby - "Matz", early thirties PKI - Several people, but Diffie, Hellman, etc were all in their thirties The Mouse AND Graphical User Interface - Douglas Engelbart, forties The Web - Tim Burners-Lee, mid-thirties The relational database, Edgar F. Codd - late forties
I would say ALL of these far, FAR outweigh TWITTER in terms of "IT importance".
But When you look at Microsoft, Apple, google, facebook, Sun, netscape,... it is hard to dismiss entirely.
This really has a lot less to do with innovative ideas and pioneering and a lot more to do with risk. When you are 24, without a spouse, kids, and a mortgage to worry about, taking on the risk to build the "next big thing" is a lot easier.
However, taking the long shot on the next big thing while putting your children's ability to eat on the line is a lot harder, and some would say even irresponsible. For every Facebook and Twitter, there's a thousand things that failed in bankruptcy.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, you are spinning the argument by misrepresenting the parent's point.
You are arguing that the application software is completely agnostic. This is true, but ultimately irrelevant. The software wasn't sued, Newzbin (the company) was.
The parent is correctly arguing that while the application software is completely agnostic, the people running that software knew damned well what that software was indexing and, in fact, pointed it out explicitly in their user guides and marketing as a feature.
If you went to the terminal and saw this file
file.big 17,179,869,184
I suspect that you would naturally say that that file is about 17 gigs. Actually, it is 16 GiB exactly.
However, just looking at the file, no one would ever instinctively say that file.big is 16 GiB. The reality is that base-10 is what people naturally use and so it makes sense for the user interface to reflect that.
'If you want to search for non-farmers who are discussing fertilizer ... it's not even searchable.'
This sounds an awful lot like the semantic web. Specifically, this sounds exactly like what WebFountain does (and has done since 2003).
Well, it really depends on your point of view and what you define as the "King of Scotland" and what you define as "the Brits".
If, for example, you define the "King of Scotland" as Wales and any single attempt as "the Brits", you may well have a point. But if you define "successful website" as "the Brits", then Wales's experience matches very well.
If we were to expand upon this, I'm pretty sure that the King of Scotland didn't attack the Brits exactly the same way each time. He tried different ways (lunch site, chinese hack spawn, nupedia) to defeat the Brits until he succeeded.
that is dishonesty
Do not attribute to malice what might be more easily attributed to being mistaken.
but whatever gave you the idea that I am kind and patient to liars, bullies, and thieves?
Nothing at all. However, to assume that someone who has a different reading of the situation is a "liar" is not exactly the paragon of intellectual honesty either. Please stop being a self-righteous dick if you want us to take you seriously.
Thank you.
You're either a moron or an RIAA lawyer.
I'm sorry.. but no. Not acceptable behavior. I'm willing to listen to reasoned debate over the facts, but when you come out of the gate with an ad hominem attack and accuse someone who disagrees with you to be a shill for your opponent, you seriously undermine your credibility and come off as exactly the "biased legal reporter" you've just been accused of being.
I expected better of you and am disappointed.
Interesting, maybe. However, if you think about the even HIGHER influx of unemployed soldiers that occurred after WWII in 1945 -- after Keynesian economics took a firm hold -- there wasn't any depression at all. In fact, there was a period of economic prosperity called "the long boom"... and literally gave birth to our generation of baby boomers. How cool is that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-World_War_II_economic_expansion
Between choosing a pre-Keynesian period where there was a short 18 month depression versus a post-Keynesian period of 25 years of prosperity (ending when Monetarism took over from Keynesian theories in the early 70's), I think I'll choose the latter.
By fall 1921 the depression was over." held true, but I can't even begin to comprehend what could you possibly mean by that.
He means exactly what he says. Before the "Great Depression" that started in 1929, there was another one that started in January 1920 and recovered about 18 months later in the summer of 1921. However, where commodore64_love went wrong was in regards to the cause. The end of WWI brought back 1.6 million newly unemployed ex-soldiers back into the workforce, which, for a short time, shocked the economy. To compare the Depression of 1920 to what is happening today isn't really valid at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression_of_1920%E2%80%9321
Wooooooosh!
Blah.. disregard my bullshit answer above... I completely misread the stats.
People still drink and drive, but at much lower rates than before.
[citation needed]
Drunk driving fatalities have steadily decreased over the years.
Correlation does not equal causation. Are the number of drunk driving ACCIDENTS less? The answer is no.
In 1983, there were about 43,900 drunk driving related accidents. In 2005, there were about... 43,400 drunk driving related accidents. No real change.
Source: http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html
The reason the number of FATALITIES have gone down is because vehicle safety has gone up, not because drunk driving has decreased.
Forfeit your license, your car, and spend a couple months in jail.
You are right! There used to be a time when people used to drink alcohol and drive their cars. Then new laws came about that made is so that you'd lose your license and spend a few months in jail. After that, no one ever drove while drunk anymore. Problem solved!
just ban cell phones entirely
They tried that with alcohol too! (From 1920 to 1933) It also worked like a champ! No one ever drank alcohol and crime sunk to all-time lows.
True, but it's not even the same name. The book refers to the replicants as "Nexus-6" models. This is the "Nexus One" phone.
Would an average person think that the estate of Philip K. Dick endorses the phone based on that? Highly, highly unlikely.
But.. you see.. it's their store. They paid for it. They can choose what they want to sell.
If the device is tightly bound to the store and you knew that ahead of time (as well you should have), then it's rather your fault for purchasing the device, isn't it. Caveat emptor, and all that.
Apparently it's not their machine either, as they lease the hardware from someone else. I asked them to pull the primary drive in the system and overnight it to me and bill me for it, and they refused, stating that it is leased equipment and they do not own it.
Okay.. so now you admit you don't even own the DRIVE. Even better. Sorry, but my conclusion is that no matter what agreements your hosting provider may have with others, YOU are the one in the wrong here -- not them.
Have them burn the data (which you more than likely own) onto a CD/DVD, then host it yourself since you claim to be so much more competent then they are.
You say this
I can't give them a limited account, because they've locked me out of accessing my own machine, demanding I give them the root password before they hand access back to me.
....however, from another post you let the truth slip out
they moved my drive to a different chassis, with completely different hardware, and are asking for the root password so they can reconfigure everything to coincide with that hardware change (...LATER...) When they migrated it from Savvis to some datacenter in Dallas 2 months ago.....
So you openly admit the machine IS NOT YOURS. You are essentially keeping them from their own machine, which I find unethical. I can't blame them for taking matters into their own hand and rebooting the system into single-user mode and locking you out until you play nice.
Stop being a jerk and cooperate with the owners of the machine you are renting or take your data elsewhere.
The thing that I can't get over is that Chase is not required to do anything at all. Chase might not have gone about it the best possible way, but they did give a lot of money to charities, which they are under no obligation to do. I can't help but feel a little embarrassed for people who complain over how someone else gives their money away to charities.
Why can't we at least look on the bright side and be thankful that there are charities out there that now have more funds than they had before, rather than whining like spoiled children that they didn't do it they way we wanted them to?
Actually, IBM has had a blue penguin for a long time. (Okay, the tux is blue at least)
http://ifup.org/images/tux-genetic.png
Slander and libel both require "publication". That is the one defamer must communicate to persons who likely know the defamed and the communication is likely harm the reputation of the defamed.
- If it is not published to third parties, it is not defamation.
- If it is published only to third parties who have no clue to the defamed is, it is not defamation. (i.e. you can't defame the anonymous.)
- If it can not harm the reputation of the defamed, it is not defamation (i.e. You can't easily defame Charles Manson, for example.)
DMCA takedown notices are generally not published by the one issuing them and fails on the first bullet.
Yes... two centuries of a stable government has provided among the highest standards of living and opportunity, but you'd rather throw that away for a government that gets bloodily overthrown every few years such as the paradises that are Afghanistan... and Somalia... and Haiti.....
You, sir, are a complete moron who has no idea how nice you have it and how bad unstable governments really are.
With very rare exception, television shows are renewed in public and cancelled in private. Since this is a VERY public thing at Comic-Con, the conclusion is foregone. If the cast were fired live on stage, agents would be filing lawsuits on behalf of their humiliated clients within seconds and the executive would be lynched in the hallway. The audience, who would obviously be ticked off, would resent FOX. Why send an executive on a PR mission to intentionally piss off your viewers and draw the ire of the SAG?
So, here's the result: Everyone makes nice, and the show is renewed with the original cast. There might even be a movie deal to up the ante. If there was any doubt about this, there would be no Comic-Con thing at all.
Nothing to see here. Publicity Stunt. Move along.
I'm sorry, but YOU originally started this thread by talking about pioneering. Your exact words were:
Keeping up is one thing, pioneering is another.
Starting a business and pioneering have absolutely nothing to do with other. People create businesses every day that don't pioneer a damned thing. People pioneer all the time working for pre-existing businesses, even their own.
I'm sorry if I can't keep up with your ever-shifting sands. Are you talking about pioneering or creating businesses? Are you talking about IT in general or just a few websites (which is a small subset of "IT")?
What IT sectors are more important than the ones I listed
A few websites make up the sum of "IT Sectors"? Oh wow. You really do have a very narrow world-view.
Well okay then, let's try these on for size.
The Altair Microcomputer - Ed Roberts in his mid-thirties
The Java programming language - James Gossling, mid-thirties.
The Internet - Several people, all in the 30's and 40's -- including Vint Cerf, now VP at Google
C - K&R, thirties
Ruby - "Matz", early thirties
PKI - Several people, but Diffie, Hellman, etc were all in their thirties
The Mouse AND Graphical User Interface - Douglas Engelbart, forties
The Web - Tim Burners-Lee, mid-thirties
The relational database, Edgar F. Codd - late forties
I would say ALL of these far, FAR outweigh TWITTER in terms of "IT importance".
But When you look at Microsoft, Apple, google, facebook, Sun, netscape,... it is hard to dismiss entirely.
This really has a lot less to do with innovative ideas and pioneering and a lot more to do with risk. When you are 24, without a spouse, kids, and a mortgage to worry about, taking on the risk to build the "next big thing" is a lot easier.
However, taking the long shot on the next big thing while putting your children's ability to eat on the line is a lot harder, and some would say even irresponsible. For every Facebook and Twitter, there's a thousand things that failed in bankruptcy.
Overall, it looks like a novel use of DFAs for user interface feedback. Still, not something I'd consider worthy of a patent.
Isn't novelty the primary indicator of something worthy of a patent?