1: I'm danish 2: I don't know why anybody would expect this more or less from Denmark 3: The cartoons were published in November 2005, but didn't gain any momentum internationally until a group of extremist imams (muslim priests) went to Egypt with a portfolio of the drawings, as well as a lot of other nasty stuff that may or may not have been presented to these guys, but never, never, never was printed in any significant publication.
It was obvious what they meant, and since he got it right, he probably doesn't hold a grudge - but they got the facts plain out wrong. You would think that a show like that would do some pretty good fact checking, especially given that there are only ~15 questions per show.
"Wrong" in what sense? Are you saying it's wrong in the sense that it's not really like that? Are you saying that it's wrong in the sense that only a few greedy moral reprobates would begrudge someone additional wealth?
Wrong in the sense that the freedom I cherish is freedom from oppression, freedom of speech, free ownership of property, freedom of doing pretty much whatever the hell I want with my own life, while not limiting the same freedom of others - the socalled negative freedoms - not the "freedom" to buy whatever I want, whenever I want, a positive freedom. Of course wether or not is wrong depends on your definition of freedom.
Either way, you're the one who is wrong.
Well, thanks for clearing that up.
A rather famous poll of a group of Harvard students asked whether the students would prefer to live in a town where they made $100K and everyone else made $200K, or a town where they made $50K and everyone else made $25K. Roughly 77% responded that they'd prefer the latter situation. If you consider this fact tantamount to saying, "77% of Harvard students are idiots," then maybe your economic theories aren't taking human nature into account.
No, 77% of Harvard students think relative wealth will make them happier. I tend to agree with them. Luckily they (and I and you) are free to decide for ourselves. My theories aren't about economics, they are about freedom.
When a person moves into town and builds his family the biggest house in the county, he has a reason: maximizing his own happiness. But he doesn't have to account for the loss of happiness inflicted on everyone around him. People who were living happily in their small houses suddenly become dissatisfied, because they've perceived themselves to lose relative standing.
If you take that argument to the extreme, you could never allow any kind of improvement in anything, anywhere, since this will inflict loss of happiness. How about the first guy that build a house with brickwall next to the log-cabin? So what's the limit? You can't build anything that more than 10% better than what is already build in that neighborhood?
In order for capitalism to be perfectly accurate, we have to assume that when one person gains economically without eroding another person's material wealth, everyone is better off.
No, capitalism is about the simple idea that trade creates value. Whenever something is traded, both parties to the trade consider themselves richer (in a total sense, which includes percieved happiness, not monetary) than before.
Say you have to choose between doing the job you love for $40K/year and doing a job you dislike for $100K. A substantial number of people would take the second job, believing that the additional $60K will bring them enough happiness to make up for the difference between the jobs. But if the government steps in and says that all income over the $40K mark will be taxed at a rate of 50%, then suddenly you're deciding between a $40K job and a $70K job. Now you're more likely to take the job you actually wanted to do, which could be seen as a correction.
If could also be that I want to work the $100K job for 5 years to save up some money, then settle down and make less money in the nicer job after that. Or it could also be that the $100K job is actually the better one. Or maybe I'm trying to put my children through college at the expense of my own happiness. In all cases you got to decide for me, and make me less happy. If somebody wants to work a bad job for more money and become miserable because of it, I firmly believe that they should be allowed to do it. It is none of mine or your business.
Or say you're choosing whether to take on additional responsibilities at your job, or spend more time with your family. High taxes on the revenu
By riding a bike and having a small house, you're not held by the balls by the finance company and your mortgage so you can SAVE more and have a less-paying job that is much more interesting and rewarding that doesn't send you home with ulcers and stress. Now THINK at how the latter will do wonders to your health in later years, those years where you precious private medical insurance will dump you because you're no longer profitable...
And GOD FORBID that people should get to make that kind of choices for themselves. You obviously know better. And even worse: that good, high-paying jobs might exist.
Actually, the amount of wealth relative to others is what determines your freedom. Poverty is generally measured, not by how little you have, but by how much less you have than average.
Yeah, and that's wrong. That is a totally corrupted perception of freedom.
If you ride a bike to work, live in a small house, feed your family and are happy, and I drive one of my BMWs to work, live in a big house, feed my family and am happy, does that make you less free that me?
Only if you tie your happiness to materialism. Ironically, leftists seem to claim that capitalists are only concerned about money, while when it comes to defining relative freedom, the only valid measure is monetary wealth.
What if you have a wife that loves you, and I don't? Doesn't that make us un-equal, and you more free than me? What if I'm a idiot with no friends, and you are a great guy with bunches? Happyness comes form so many other factors than money, and I said that, me, the (economic-)freedom loving, high-tax hating capitalist.
I live in Denmark, with one of the most ridiculously high taxation rates in the world, so I'm not just talking from theory, this is everyday life for me.
In my family there is a guy, an academic, whom today is unhappy with his work, because he over the years declined career advances because the extra responsibilities would in no way be compensated by the exra money earned in 60+% top tax bracket. No, he is not exceedingly rich for being in the top taxbracket, about halft of everybody with a fulltime job is in it.
In a more socialist system, by contrast, higher taxes and moderate salaries means that everyone is working for each other, contributing to a community. They still have the same average spending power, which means that no one is "poorer" for their lack of resources. But they're happy, and together, they've built something: a society, where people feel wanted and protected and cared for, so that they don't feel the need to sleep with guns in the drawer, or shoot their classmates.
Cue violins. This is bullshit. That is how Marx imagined it on paper, but it never happened in real life. A recent study in Denmark showed that the average citizen is not working for the common good, but has become a spoiled welfare junkie, always expecting more and better from the government, a vicious circle..
I don't have a problem paying taxes (I'm not an anarchist), but I do have a problem with the government spending my taxes to keep 1/5 of the workforce out of the labormarket.
(not least that our data center is at best 100 Mb/s and our software is actually more data than computation heavy)
First: I assume that you are talking about clusters, not grids (grid=>cluster as road=>car).
Second: The computation nodes *do not* sit on your regular datacenter network. A computation node only ever talks to its master and its peers, so they sit on their own, dedicated, high-speed network (usually no less than 1 gbps).
Third: Some tasks are better for SMP, other for clusters. Find out which yours are. As others have pointed out, the degree of data dependency is the most interesting parameter.
SMPs are usually easier to program for and to setup, but at a certain scale they just stop being very costeffecient. Example: A Sun Fire E20K with 36 UltraSparc IV+ 1.8 ghz and 144 GB RAM will set you back $2.500.000. Alternative? Let's build a 36-node cluster.. 1: Spend $100.000 on network infrastructure (there are numerous approaches to this, I'm no expert) 2: Buy 36 of fattest servers from Penguin Computing, at $30.000 each. Now, at $1.180.000, you have 36x4 Opteron 885 (dual-core) cpu and 4,5 GB RAM per core (32 GB per machine). Don't tell me that won't kick the SunFires ass at any problem appropriately parallel... But obviously there are painfully dependent problems out there, and that's how Sun sells those beasts.
If anything aliens would be getting pissed off with being inundated with out crap 24/7
Yeah, it's really annoying. They are constantly debating this issue, and all this noise is routinely considered to be the end of radioborne television. Many are arguing that a replacement of the Simple Radio Transfer Protocol will solve the problem, while others say that would not be so simple.
To counter the transaction-fee and stolen card problems:
A new organization would have to be set up to operate this, and charge accordingly - eg. $.50 for a deposit of $10, and a $15/year fee for a max of 100 comments a month - $10 deposists and 100 comments a month free. The money would be given to the organization, not the blog operator, in case of spam - otherwise there would be incentive to falsely report a comment as spam, also to avoid having to operate within banking legislation (as I believe sucks for a company like PayPal).
Credit card fraud would be avoided by freezing a new account for 5 (?) days, then checking if the card was cancelled. Maybe freeing up $1 to allow one comment while waiting.
Participating sites would have to agree on some very specific rules for what constitutes spam. On one hand, they have to be strong enough to effectively resolve strifes, on the other hand lax enough that debate won't suffer from it (come to think about it, wording like "being very out of context", "having a sales-pitch nature where inappropriate" would probably do the job).
Strifes could be resolved in a reputation-driven community, where members (both blog-operators and comment posters) that have a good reputation and a certain number of posts posted or approved with no objections, get to vote on wether a certain comment that was reported as spam really is. This should keep the operating costs of the provider low.
I think this could really work.. Where do I submit the patent?
So the real problem is coming up with CAPTCHAs in real-time with no permanent (this session ID) correlation made between the image link and the answer. Then hiring "slave labor" to make this mapping for you will be completely useless.
No, that won't work. The spam-computer is in the US, probably a bot-net drone. It automatically visits the blog to be spammed, and captures the CAPTCHA. It now sends this to the Indian, whom within 30 seconds types the correct answer, and this is now inserted on the page, and the comment is submitted - all within the same timeframe a human would need.
Imposing a very short timeout would make it harder on the bad guys (and the good guys...), but it would merely be an annoyance. Any AJAX2.0 magic you can think of, they can fake.
(Personally, I think that the 'net doesn't need to be in classrooms anyway. I went to HS from 1993 to 1997 and survived just fine without going online in school.)
Oh, please.
I personally can't see why anyone should have internet access. It seems like people living prior to 1990 did just fine without. People also did fine without books before Guthenberg came along.
Yeah yeah yeah, I'll get off your damn lawn now, old man.
And herein lies the rub. What are you going to do when your mini-ISP's ISP kills all your clients' connections to Google? Switch to another ISP who... suprise! ultimately gets their internet connection from the same place you did and is currently having the same problem?
You think big.
You talk to the other mini-ISPs across the country, and form the Free Net Foundation. You raise some money (remember, you've already got 1000s of customers in these mini-ISPs), set up a new backbone (I've heard that Google owns some fiber..), and off you go.
Telecom and cable monopoly lies in one, and only one place: Last mile access. The market for FWA and fiber is open, flexible and not bogged down by monopolies.
I think it is extremely unethical. If this Craig guy is so brilliantly and genuinely Good(tm), then who doesn't he slap a Google ad-bar on each page and donate all the money to Doctors without Borders or some other nice things? He readership wouldn't care, since he'd write a short message on the frontpage explaining this.
This is half a billion dollars buying somebody else a few private jets, y'know..
The point of shortwave is that you can listen from anywhere, undetected. Calling a phone leaves a bunch of traces. There is really no discreet way for our man in Havana to call longdistance and listening to numbers for a few minutes. You could just put the numbers on a free website somewhere, or use email..
Maybe they're trying to phase out pilots all together?
Definitively. Computers are more efficient and less errorprone than human pilots. Look at trains: Driverless trains are starting to emerge for real now. This is partly due to the fact that technology is mature enough for it, and partly due to a realization of the fact that a human is really no use in a train going 300 km/t.
Commercial train traffic is about 100 years older than commercial airline traffic, factor in a speedup because airlines tend to be much less regulated than trains, and we are looking at 20 years. Most of this time will be spend waiting for people to accept the idea of a pilot-less airplane.
An obvious immediate is the remote - yet still human - controlled airplane. Pilots work during take-off, landing and in-air emergencies. Put the pilot on the ground, and he will be able to land or take-off 6-10 planes an hour instead of one every 1-8 hours. Taxing could be handled by much less qualified drivers. It would take a lot of stress off of pilots, making it a regular day job (although with different shifts). It would also make a pilots day more interesting.
I could all be Open Source, no problem. But it would have to be signed by an trusted entity (eg. RedHat). Download the source, compile with *exactly* the same compilers and parameters as RH, and you'd have a DRM-compatible Linux kernel. Change one byte, and you have a Linux kernel.
Re:weird perspective for a conflict... and wrong!
on
Sun's Open Source DRM
·
· Score: 1
.. customers...... The DRM is wrong. If you don't trust me, your customer giving my money, I'm not buying.
Nothing in DRM says that it only applies to music, games and movies and other buyable media. Obviously, yes, that is one (and definitly the most widely applied right now) application.
But there is also a huge business application. I write a sensitive document and send it to a business partner, locked to his computer (or reading device, think e-paper), screen display only - no paper copies. Right now, I trust him - but next week perhaps he decides to do business with my competitor. Instead of spending months in court, I'd like for all of the sensitive documents I've sent him to simply not to work anymore. It's digital and it's management of my rights.
The business world is littered with sensitive information that owners want a secure and controlled way to share. DRM is the solution to that. You don't need your sensitive information to play in your car or play in three years or whatever. And your definitely do not own it or have 'fair use' rights beyond your specific agreement with the owner.
I really don't know, but it could be that Google shares some ad-money with the wifi provider in exchange for exact long/lat of the accesspoint in order to sell truly local advertisement.
This is so obscenely overpriced at $35 per movie, hell, you could buy 2 or 3 DVDs for that price.
That is pure marketing. At $35 they only get (rich;)) early adopters, some people trying to download one movie to see how it works. That will give them time to get the wrinkels ironed out, and then in a few months they lower the prices to eg. $20 and run a massive campaign.
I said nothing about popular opinion. I talked about marches. The problem with marches is that they seldom represent popular opinion. If marches represent such a large percentage of the general public, why don't they go vote for a party representing their views? Or start a new one? Because marches, sincere as they surely are, does not represent a general, popular opinion. It is free to join a march and shout something. To vote for a government has consequences.
No, one or a few employers can't be said to represent anything significant (on a government level, anyway). But the mass of employers that would be significantly hurt by the EU acting irresponsbily to the degree that Microsoft would abandon Europe(*) most certainly affects you. And if you don't think so, go take Economics 101.
(*) This whole discussion is very far from reality. As others pointed out, Microsoft can in no way afford not to stay completely comitted to the European market.
Yes, because that worked so well for the Iraq war. A million people marched in London, yet our troops are still there.
You can't be serious. Marches are not tools of direct democracy - and have never been. They are tools of morale and media-attention. It would be hugely populistic, borderline corrupt, for any official to base anything on the fact that so-and-so many people decided to march somewhere.
However, business leaders representing possibly millions of jobs complaining about an immediate problem that is preventing them from conducting their business, is more like the kind of problem that officials would care to solve.
it's is pure bullcrap that MSSQL,Oracle,MySQL and PostgreSQL can not take the exact same complex query without having to rewrite it.
So, a SQL parser and compiler that can transform queries between these should be trivial to make, right? The absense of this tool, combined with the absolute immense usefulness of it, tells my sense of logic that this is not really the case.
What's the point of being able to control a cold water valve actuator through the internet?
Not "the internet", the TCP/IP infrastructure.
The reason is the same that you want your toilets, lab sinks, coffee machines and drinking fountains on the same, unified water supply network, rather than seperate ones for each. Sure, if the watermains break, you loose ALL of those, but on the other hand, you have the budgets of n networks, rather than one, to make sure that won't happen.
Slashdot Mirror
1: I'm danish
2: I don't know why anybody would expect this more or less from Denmark
3: The cartoons were published in November 2005, but didn't gain any momentum internationally until a group of extremist imams (muslim priests) went to Egypt with a portfolio of the drawings, as well as a lot of other nasty stuff that may or may not have been presented to these guys, but never, never, never was printed in any significant publication.
It was obvious what they meant, and since he got it right, he probably doesn't hold a grudge - but they got the facts plain out wrong. You would think that a show like that would do some pretty good fact checking, especially given that there are only ~15 questions per show.
It needs to be inexpensive, easy to administer, and something that only needs to be administered once.
Shoot anybody with AIDS.
Just kidding, of course, never the less, this has been done before. (During the plague, the infected was often isolated somehwere and left to die.)
Wrong in the sense that the freedom I cherish is freedom from oppression, freedom of speech, free ownership of property, freedom of doing pretty much whatever the hell I want with my own life, while not limiting the same freedom of others - the socalled negative freedoms - not the "freedom" to buy whatever I want, whenever I want, a positive freedom. Of course wether or not is wrong depends on your definition of freedom.
Well, thanks for clearing that up.
No, 77% of Harvard students think relative wealth will make them happier. I tend to agree with them. Luckily they (and I and you) are free to decide for ourselves. My theories aren't about economics, they are about freedom.
If you take that argument to the extreme, you could never allow any kind of improvement in anything, anywhere, since this will inflict loss of happiness. How about the first guy that build a house with brickwall next to the log-cabin? So what's the limit? You can't build anything that more than 10% better than what is already build in that neighborhood?
No, capitalism is about the simple idea that trade creates value. Whenever something is traded, both parties to the trade consider themselves richer (in a total sense, which includes percieved happiness, not monetary) than before.
If could also be that I want to work the $100K job for 5 years to save up some money, then settle down and make less money in the nicer job after that. Or it could also be that the $100K job is actually the better one. Or maybe I'm trying to put my children through college at the expense of my own happiness.
In all cases you got to decide for me, and make me less happy.
If somebody wants to work a bad job for more money and become miserable because of it, I firmly believe that they should be allowed to do it. It is none of mine or your business.
And GOD FORBID that people should get to make that kind of choices for themselves. You obviously know better.
And even worse: that good, high-paying jobs might exist.
Yeah, and that's wrong. That is a totally corrupted perception of freedom.
If you ride a bike to work, live in a small house, feed your family and are happy, and I drive one of my BMWs to work, live in a big house, feed my family and am happy, does that make you less free that me?
Only if you tie your happiness to materialism. Ironically, leftists seem to claim that capitalists are only concerned about money, while when it comes to defining relative freedom, the only valid measure is monetary wealth.
What if you have a wife that loves you, and I don't? Doesn't that make us un-equal, and you more free than me? What if I'm a idiot with no friends, and you are a great guy with bunches?
Happyness comes form so many other factors than money, and I said that, me, the (economic-)freedom loving, high-tax hating capitalist.
I live in Denmark, with one of the most ridiculously high taxation rates in the world, so I'm not just talking from theory, this is everyday life for me.
In my family there is a guy, an academic, whom today is unhappy with his work, because he over the years declined career advances because the extra responsibilities would in no way be compensated by the exra money earned in 60+% top tax bracket. No, he is not exceedingly rich for being in the top taxbracket, about halft of everybody with a fulltime job is in it.
Cue violins. This is bullshit. That is how Marx imagined it on paper, but it never happened in real life. A recent study in Denmark showed that the average citizen is not working for the common good, but has become a spoiled welfare junkie, always expecting more and better from the government, a vicious circle..
I don't have a problem paying taxes (I'm not an anarchist), but I do have a problem with the government spending my taxes to keep 1/5 of the workforce out of the labormarket.
Why not just dump SourceForge? Surely there are utilities to migrate to another development platform or an open source repository solution...
First: I assume that you are talking about clusters, not grids (grid=>cluster as road=>car).
Second: The computation nodes *do not* sit on your regular datacenter network. A computation node only ever talks to its master and its peers, so they sit on their own, dedicated, high-speed network (usually no less than 1 gbps).
Third: Some tasks are better for SMP, other for clusters. Find out which yours are. As others have pointed out, the degree of data dependency is the most interesting parameter.
SMPs are usually easier to program for and to setup, but at a certain scale they just stop being very costeffecient.
Example: A Sun Fire E20K with 36 UltraSparc IV+ 1.8 ghz and 144 GB RAM will set you back $2.500.000.
Alternative? Let's build a 36-node cluster..
1: Spend $100.000 on network infrastructure (there are numerous approaches to this, I'm no expert)
2: Buy 36 of fattest servers from Penguin Computing, at $30.000 each.
Now, at $1.180.000, you have 36x4 Opteron 885 (dual-core) cpu and 4,5 GB RAM per core (32 GB per machine).
Don't tell me that won't kick the SunFires ass at any problem appropriately parallel... But obviously there are painfully dependent problems out there, and that's how Sun sells those beasts.
Yeah, it's really annoying. They are constantly debating this issue, and all this noise is routinely considered to be the end of radioborne television. Many are arguing that a replacement of the Simple Radio Transfer Protocol will solve the problem, while others say that would not be so simple.
This has to be a joke. Microsoft actually employed a named Window S. ??
Refundable micropayments.
This is a brilliant idea!
To counter the transaction-fee and stolen card problems:
A new organization would have to be set up to operate this, and charge accordingly - eg. $.50 for a deposit of $10, and a $15/year fee for a max of 100 comments a month - $10 deposists and 100 comments a month free. The money would be given to the organization, not the blog operator, in case of spam - otherwise there would be incentive to falsely report a comment as spam, also to avoid having to operate within banking legislation (as I believe sucks for a company like PayPal).
Credit card fraud would be avoided by freezing a new account for 5 (?) days, then checking if the card was cancelled. Maybe freeing up $1 to allow one comment while waiting.
Participating sites would have to agree on some very specific rules for what constitutes spam. On one hand, they have to be strong enough to effectively resolve strifes, on the other hand lax enough that debate won't suffer from it (come to think about it, wording like "being very out of context", "having a sales-pitch nature where inappropriate" would probably do the job).
Strifes could be resolved in a reputation-driven community, where members (both blog-operators and comment posters) that have a good reputation and a certain number of posts posted or approved with no objections, get to vote on wether a certain comment that was reported as spam really is. This should keep the operating costs of the provider low.
I think this could really work.. Where do I submit the patent?
So the real problem is coming up with CAPTCHAs in real-time with no permanent (this session ID) correlation made between the image link and the answer. Then hiring "slave labor" to make this mapping for you will be completely useless.
No, that won't work. The spam-computer is in the US, probably a bot-net drone. It automatically visits the blog to be spammed, and captures the CAPTCHA. It now sends this to the Indian, whom within 30 seconds types the correct answer, and this is now inserted on the page, and the comment is submitted - all within the same timeframe a human would need.
Imposing a very short timeout would make it harder on the bad guys (and the good guys...), but it would merely be an annoyance. Any AJAX2.0 magic you can think of, they can fake.
I don't disagree with you on that, but that just wasn't what you stated in your original post.
(Personally, I think that the 'net doesn't need to be in classrooms anyway. I went to HS from 1993 to 1997 and survived just fine without going online in school.)
Oh, please.
I personally can't see why anyone should have internet access. It seems like people living prior to 1990 did just fine without. People also did fine without books before Guthenberg came along.
Yeah yeah yeah, I'll get off your damn lawn now, old man.
And herein lies the rub. What are you going to do when your mini-ISP's ISP kills all your clients' connections to Google? Switch to another ISP who... suprise! ultimately gets their internet connection from the same place you did and is currently having the same problem?
You think big.
You talk to the other mini-ISPs across the country, and form the Free Net Foundation. You raise some money (remember, you've already got 1000s of customers in these mini-ISPs), set up a new backbone (I've heard that Google owns some fiber..), and off you go.
Telecom and cable monopoly lies in one, and only one place: Last mile access. The market for FWA and fiber is open, flexible and not bogged down by monopolies.
I think it is extremely unethical. If this Craig guy is so brilliantly and genuinely Good(tm), then who doesn't he slap a Google ad-bar on each page and donate all the money to Doctors without Borders or some other nice things? He readership wouldn't care, since he'd write a short message on the frontpage explaining this.
This is half a billion dollars buying somebody else a few private jets, y'know..
The point of shortwave is that you can listen from anywhere, undetected.
Calling a phone leaves a bunch of traces. There is really no discreet way for our man in Havana to call longdistance and listening to numbers for a few minutes.
You could just put the numbers on a free website somewhere, or use email..
Maybe they're trying to phase out pilots all together?
Definitively. Computers are more efficient and less errorprone than human pilots. Look at trains: Driverless trains are starting to emerge for real now. This is partly due to the fact that technology is mature enough for it, and partly due to a realization of the fact that a human is really no use in a train going 300 km/t.
Commercial train traffic is about 100 years older than commercial airline traffic, factor in a speedup because airlines tend to be much less regulated than trains, and we are looking at 20 years. Most of this time will be spend waiting for people to accept the idea of a pilot-less airplane.
An obvious immediate is the remote - yet still human - controlled airplane. Pilots work during take-off, landing and in-air emergencies. Put the pilot on the ground, and he will be able to land or take-off 6-10 planes an hour instead of one every 1-8 hours. Taxing could be handled by much less qualified drivers. It would take a lot of stress off of pilots, making it a regular day job (although with different shifts). It would also make a pilots day more interesting.
I could all be Open Source, no problem. But it would have to be signed by an trusted entity (eg. RedHat). Download the source, compile with *exactly* the same compilers and parameters as RH, and you'd have a DRM-compatible Linux kernel. Change one byte, and you have a Linux kernel.
The DRM is wrong. If you don't trust me, your customer giving my money, I'm not buying.
Nothing in DRM says that it only applies to music, games and movies and other buyable media. Obviously, yes, that is one (and definitly the most widely applied right now) application.
But there is also a huge business application. I write a sensitive document and send it to a business partner, locked to his computer (or reading device, think e-paper), screen display only - no paper copies. Right now, I trust him - but next week perhaps he decides to do business with my competitor. Instead of spending months in court, I'd like for all of the sensitive documents I've sent him to simply not to work anymore. It's digital and it's management of my rights.
The business world is littered with sensitive information that owners want a secure and controlled way to share. DRM is the solution to that. You don't need your sensitive information to play in your car or play in three years or whatever. And your definitely do not own it or have 'fair use' rights beyond your specific agreement with the owner.
I really don't know, but it could be that Google shares some ad-money with the wifi provider in exchange for exact long/lat of the accesspoint in order to sell truly local advertisement.
This is so obscenely overpriced at $35 per movie, hell, you could buy 2 or 3 DVDs for that price.
;)) early adopters, some people trying to download one movie to see how it works. That will give them time to get the wrinkels ironed out, and then in a few months they lower the prices to eg. $20 and run a massive campaign.
That is pure marketing. At $35 they only get (rich
It's kind of a pilot program, except it's public.
I said nothing about popular opinion. I talked about marches.
The problem with marches is that they seldom represent popular opinion. If marches represent such a large percentage of the general public, why don't they go vote for a party representing their views? Or start a new one? Because marches, sincere as they surely are, does not represent a general, popular opinion. It is free to join a march and shout something. To vote for a government has consequences.
No, one or a few employers can't be said to represent anything significant (on a government level, anyway). But the mass of employers that would be significantly hurt by the EU acting irresponsbily to the degree that Microsoft would abandon Europe(*) most certainly affects you. And if you don't think so, go take Economics 101.
(*) This whole discussion is very far from reality. As others pointed out, Microsoft can in no way afford not to stay completely comitted to the European market.
Yes, because that worked so well for the Iraq war. A million people marched in London, yet our troops are still there.
You can't be serious. Marches are not tools of direct democracy - and have never been. They are tools of morale and media-attention. It would be hugely populistic, borderline corrupt, for any official to base anything on the fact that so-and-so many people decided to march somewhere.
However, business leaders representing possibly millions of jobs complaining about an immediate problem that is preventing them from conducting their business, is more like the kind of problem that officials would care to solve.
it's is pure bullcrap that MSSQL,Oracle,MySQL and PostgreSQL can not take the exact same complex query without having to rewrite it.
So, a SQL parser and compiler that can transform queries between these should be trivial to make, right?
The absense of this tool, combined with the absolute immense usefulness of it, tells my sense of logic that this is not really the case.
What's the point of being able to control a cold water valve actuator through the internet?
Not "the internet", the TCP/IP infrastructure.
The reason is the same that you want your toilets, lab sinks, coffee machines and drinking fountains on the same, unified water supply network, rather than seperate ones for each. Sure, if the watermains break, you loose ALL of those, but on the other hand, you have the budgets of n networks, rather than one, to make sure that won't happen.