But your Sony TV supports standard video via it's built-in inputs. What would you say if Sony said that playback of recordings from non-Sony devices voided your warranty? This is exactly the same thing happening on the iPad. You must use Apple's dev tools or you won't be considered for sale in their marketplace - the only way to normally get something onto the device. If you jailbreak your device so you can install whatever you like, your warranty is voided. If you pay $99/year, you can install it on your system, and only your system. If you want to share it with your friend, well, they have to pay, too.
Remember, this isn't merely about Flash on the iPad. Apple has taken this to the level of using Flash tools (or any other non-Apple tools) to develop for the iPad.
And then where I live, they put speed cameras that are active 24/7 in construction zones. So up to 75% of the time the cameras are running there aren't even construction workers present, and there's no notification that a speed camera is ahead, and yet I'm supposed to believe the primary purpose is to slow down traffic in order to reduce injury. Hardly.
If traffic cameras weren't used so often for money grabs, perhaps people would actually be more in favour of them being used to improve safety.
And here's why I'm angry at apple while not particularly happy with Flash. "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire
It's not that I think Flash is great, it's that I think people should be able to do what they want with their stuff (and not pay a fee to do so). It's all about freedom.
I can agree with that except for solar pv. If the economies of scale that take effect so strongly with lithographic processes can be caused by subsidizing solar pv to the point where it becomes competitive, then I'm more than willing to subsidize it. Of course, that's a big if.
Wow, that sounds like my proposal that all models of government are equally good in an ideal world. It's just too bad we don't live in an ideal world, although it isn't as dystopian as your statement implies. Any action can be self-serving, that doesn't mean it is. Or are they just lying to themselves and you know better?
As you and all the people replying to your post seem to have missed, "many of the employees in his department" bring their personal computers to work. This doesn't sound like a rogue employee flaunting all the rules to me, so much as a corporation saving a buck by having a department supply their own hardware. Granted, that is as much speculation as the idea that we have a rogue department.
We also can't infer from that that this department has "unfettered access" to the network. For that matter, no one short of network admins should have "unfettered access" to the network. I don't, and I use company hardware. For all we know, and this would be somewhat unsurprising to me, this is a development department with limited access to the network at large (email, printers, network file storage per user, internet access) and unfettered access to some number of development servers.
My final note is that if the IT department's best solution for protecting email outside of the network is to encrypt drives of home computers (NOT the computers they bring to work), rather than configuring web mail or remote access, we have another sign of the IT department's lack of capability to go along with allowing employee computers on the network.
It says spoiler free in the title, but then the subtitle says "spoiler light". As we all know, "light" is a word that's not regulated by the FDA, so it's impossible to determine how much spoiler content actually exists in a review using that term, other than that it contains fewer spoiler than one marked "regular" or "full spoiler" or something of that nature.
I can only assume that "full-spoiler" would be the entire movie, with director commentary. At least, that seems to be the most completely spoiled version of a movie when you view the DVD.
Christian churches 1/10th the size of the Catholic Church have been telling them to STFU for over 1600 years. Yes, that's about how long the Catholic Church has been around. Go figure.
Why would rounding even be a topic for discussion?
Because most people aren't very good at math. I had a teacher who would ask in a Grade 11 math course: A truck can haul 2000 L of, oh, let's say milk, at capacity. The company needs to haul 11000 L of milk from point A to point B. How many trips will that take? He was amused by how many people would say 5.5 instead of 6. After all, that last 1000 L still takes a full trip to be delivered.
Fuck this moronic pandering to people who want to do nothing with a computer but watch 1080p videos: I want my vertical resolution back. Stop stealing pixels from the top and bottom and tacking them onto the sides where I don't need them for document work.
I, on the other hand, LOVE the wide-screen displays. The only things that beats having a screen that can show two pages of a document side-by-side at a readable size (or one page at a readable size plus room for a second app to run fully visible) is to have TWO such monitors. My 22" wide-screen at home is perfect for that, and I'm planning for a second.
Piracy only causes losses equal to what pirates would buy if they couldn't pirate, not equal to what they pirated. Think of it as opportunity costs - sure, it's money you might have made if you'd done things differently, but actual cost is what comes out of your pocket. The trick for measuring the value of opportunity costs, similar to measuring the cost of piracy, is determining how much of that speculative loss could be turned into income.
Telecoms weren't always dumb pipes. Remember when people actually had to make physical connections between two lines in order for a call to be completed? Back then, they provided value that couldn't be found elsewhere. Now, in the age of automation, they provide a simple service - keep the machines running and maintain the physical network.
There is a such thing as criminal negligence, and I think it can be argued that the banks crossed that line....to use a car analogy... It's pretty safe for me to drive 1 million km/h on a totally uninhabited road - my car can do that! OTOH, doing 90 km/h in a city probably isn't a good idea, and will probably get you a ticket - you're not being smart. And hitting a person while doing the speed limit when the person was clearly visible and easily avoidable, even if doing nothing else wrong, can get you convicted of criminal negligence causing death.
So why is it okay to blow BILLIONS of dollars on bad bets, but less okay to STEAL some relatively small amount?
OTOH, atomic clocks make pretty lousy pulsars. Are you truly surprised that a large, chaotic body, interacting with it's environment, is less useful for marking time than a purpose-built device in a pre-defined environment?
That's only half relevant. What that means is you can't go to a town and kill everyone because Baghdad Bob lives there. You can shoot at armed 'civilians' or 'civilians' who are with other people who are shooting at you. I put civilians in quotes because if no one wears a uniform, how is anyone to tell if you're a civilian or not? So you can't just assume anyone walking by in civilian clothing is a scary terrorist.
This is similar to the rules regarding hospitals and schools. They are civilian targets until you have military emplacements in them. Then you can attack them, after taking reasonable precautions to reduce civilian injuries (difficult, given the military placements were put there to take advantage of the unpleasant prospect of targeting civilians in the first place).
Oh, and according to this link, the French Resistance wasn't covered by the Geneva Convention for a number of reasons that apply to the Afghan fighters! "Because he was an illegal combatant, wearing civilian clothing, Lt. Guiraud did not have the rights of a POW under the Geneva Convention."
In short. Want to fight, and lay claim to the Geneva Convention? Get a uniform, and wear it! If not, suck it up. Guerrilla warfare is a bitch.
Ah, but the government isn't you and me, and when they 'kidnap' someone, they claim to do it under the PATRIOT Act. See Mike Hawash. While I can't say he's a great guy, or that I agree with him, how can justice be served with 6 weeks of imprisonment with no charges laid, and only getting those charges after enough noise was made by other people? Likewise with Omar Khadr. Not too many 15-year-olds get tried as adults, and as far as I know, he hasn't even been tried. The problem is, these acts are committed against 'bad people', which sets a precedent for 'not so bad people', and that is just about everyone.
More important is the actual finding -- if the surveillance was illegal, it falls under the "Fruit of the Poisoned Vine" doctrine...
Do you really think the evidence found from a warrantless wiretap wouldn't be enough to get you disappeared? And there is the crux of the problem: If you remove rule of law in how evidence is collected and used, and then remove it from how people are treated based on that 'evidence', no one is safe, anywhere, from abuse of government power.
..."one size fits all" is always BS, even in clothing.
That dress seemed to work pretty well for Alice. And if she had to do the shoot wearing a bikini so they could add the dress using CGI later, well, that works pretty well, too.;-)
Moreover, while it may be true that many kids aren't wired for mat, the best math students are wired for math at that age or much younger.
First, given that they've discovered that a dog can determine the most efficient point to enter the water to get a ball (calculus), who's to say we all aren't wired to do math well? Which brings me to my supposition: Perhaps the reason teaching math at a later age worked just as well was because most kids' brains were sufficiently developed at that point that it was simple to introduce them to concepts their brain was fully capable of handling, rather than trying to force them to figure something out that was developmentally beyond them, thus forcing them to rely on rote and memorization without true understanding to complete the course. As an analogy, imagine trying to teach a baby to walk early. Sure, you could do try, and you might even succeed. But it would be a lot of work for the baby, he probably wouldn't like it, and it would be a huge pain for you. But would that child be any better at walking than any of his peers by the time he was 3 years old? Probably not.
I'm not normally a grammar nazi, but you tried too hard, and thus stood out. Who has the same utility as he and she (and it), whom has the same utility as him and her. If the sentence would be grammatically correct with him or her, use whom. If it works with he, she, or it, use who.
Helping the people of an evil regime do morally neutral things isn't evil. Helping an evil regime do evil things is.
The counter-argument may be: Well, why don't those people get rid of the evil regime? There may be a lot of answers to that, but given the disparity between government power and citizen power, and the clear historical evidence of the government's lack of hesitation to harm a significant number of its citizens, internal resistance, peaceful or otherwise, looks pretty hopeless.
Maths is great for some coding problems, I'm not saying it isn't, but you rarely bump into a commercial coding problem that requires any degree of serious maths. I've been commercial coding for nearly 20 years, and I've hit a maths problem 3 times (and the last two were solved by a half-day of Googling).
Every time I hear this, I think of the caveman using rocks for hammers. Sure, it gets the job done, but they could have done the job so much better if only they'd had a better tool.
They think it 'could have' significant implications? Surely they mean it definitely has significant implications and also hasn't?
Nah, that's just wishful thinking. Obviously whether it has significant implications is still in an uncollapsed state, but they're hoping it will collapse into the 'significant implications' state. Hmm, maybe Schrodinger wasn't trying to kill his cat after all...
Slashdot Mirror
But your Sony TV supports standard video via it's built-in inputs. What would you say if Sony said that playback of recordings from non-Sony devices voided your warranty?
This is exactly the same thing happening on the iPad. You must use Apple's dev tools or you won't be considered for sale in their marketplace - the only way to normally get something onto the device. If you jailbreak your device so you can install whatever you like, your warranty is voided. If you pay $99/year, you can install it on your system, and only your system. If you want to share it with your friend, well, they have to pay, too.
Remember, this isn't merely about Flash on the iPad. Apple has taken this to the level of using Flash tools (or any other non-Apple tools) to develop for the iPad.
And then where I live, they put speed cameras that are active 24/7 in construction zones. So up to 75% of the time the cameras are running there aren't even construction workers present, and there's no notification that a speed camera is ahead, and yet I'm supposed to believe the primary purpose is to slow down traffic in order to reduce injury. Hardly.
If traffic cameras weren't used so often for money grabs, perhaps people would actually be more in favour of them being used to improve safety.
And here's why I'm angry at apple while not particularly happy with Flash.
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire
It's not that I think Flash is great, it's that I think people should be able to do what they want with their stuff (and not pay a fee to do so). It's all about freedom.
I can agree with that except for solar pv. If the economies of scale that take effect so strongly with lithographic processes can be caused by subsidizing solar pv to the point where it becomes competitive, then I'm more than willing to subsidize it. Of course, that's a big if.
Wow, that sounds like my proposal that all models of government are equally good in an ideal world. It's just too bad we don't live in an ideal world, although it isn't as dystopian as your statement implies. Any action can be self-serving, that doesn't mean it is. Or are they just lying to themselves and you know better?
As you and all the people replying to your post seem to have missed, "many of the employees in his department" bring their personal computers to work. This doesn't sound like a rogue employee flaunting all the rules to me, so much as a corporation saving a buck by having a department supply their own hardware. Granted, that is as much speculation as the idea that we have a rogue department.
We also can't infer from that that this department has "unfettered access" to the network. For that matter, no one short of network admins should have "unfettered access" to the network. I don't, and I use company hardware. For all we know, and this would be somewhat unsurprising to me, this is a development department with limited access to the network at large (email, printers, network file storage per user, internet access) and unfettered access to some number of development servers.
My final note is that if the IT department's best solution for protecting email outside of the network is to encrypt drives of home computers (NOT the computers they bring to work), rather than configuring web mail or remote access, we have another sign of the IT department's lack of capability to go along with allowing employee computers on the network.
Sounds like a reminder, too. "Fly this puppy too close to the sun and your wings will melt off and you'll turn into a rock."
It says spoiler free in the title, but then the subtitle says "spoiler light". As we all know, "light" is a word that's not regulated by the FDA, so it's impossible to determine how much spoiler content actually exists in a review using that term, other than that it contains fewer spoiler than one marked "regular" or "full spoiler" or something of that nature.
I can only assume that "full-spoiler" would be the entire movie, with director commentary. At least, that seems to be the most completely spoiled version of a movie when you view the DVD.
Christian churches 1/10th the size of the Catholic Church have been telling them to STFU for over 1600 years. Yes, that's about how long the Catholic Church has been around. Go figure.
Why would rounding even be a topic for discussion?
Because most people aren't very good at math. I had a teacher who would ask in a Grade 11 math course: A truck can haul 2000 L of, oh, let's say milk, at capacity. The company needs to haul 11000 L of milk from point A to point B. How many trips will that take? He was amused by how many people would say 5.5 instead of 6. After all, that last 1000 L still takes a full trip to be delivered.
Fuck this moronic pandering to people who want to do nothing with a computer but watch 1080p videos: I want my vertical resolution back. Stop stealing pixels from the top and bottom and tacking them onto the sides where I don't need them for document work.
I, on the other hand, LOVE the wide-screen displays. The only things that beats having a screen that can show two pages of a document side-by-side at a readable size (or one page at a readable size plus room for a second app to run fully visible) is to have TWO such monitors. My 22" wide-screen at home is perfect for that, and I'm planning for a second.
Piracy only causes losses equal to what pirates would buy if they couldn't pirate, not equal to what they pirated. Think of it as opportunity costs - sure, it's money you might have made if you'd done things differently, but actual cost is what comes out of your pocket.
The trick for measuring the value of opportunity costs, similar to measuring the cost of piracy, is determining how much of that speculative loss could be turned into income.
Telecoms weren't always dumb pipes. Remember when people actually had to make physical connections between two lines in order for a call to be completed? Back then, they provided value that couldn't be found elsewhere. Now, in the age of automation, they provide a simple service - keep the machines running and maintain the physical network.
There is a such thing as criminal negligence, and I think it can be argued that the banks crossed that line. ...to use a car analogy...
It's pretty safe for me to drive 1 million km/h on a totally uninhabited road - my car can do that! OTOH, doing 90 km/h in a city probably isn't a good idea, and will probably get you a ticket - you're not being smart. And hitting a person while doing the speed limit when the person was clearly visible and easily avoidable, even if doing nothing else wrong, can get you convicted of criminal negligence causing death.
So why is it okay to blow BILLIONS of dollars on bad bets, but less okay to STEAL some relatively small amount?
OTOH, atomic clocks make pretty lousy pulsars. Are you truly surprised that a large, chaotic body, interacting with it's environment, is less useful for marking time than a purpose-built device in a pre-defined environment?
That's only half relevant. What that means is you can't go to a town and kill everyone because Baghdad Bob lives there. You can shoot at armed 'civilians' or 'civilians' who are with other people who are shooting at you. I put civilians in quotes because if no one wears a uniform, how is anyone to tell if you're a civilian or not? So you can't just assume anyone walking by in civilian clothing is a scary terrorist.
This is similar to the rules regarding hospitals and schools. They are civilian targets until you have military emplacements in them. Then you can attack them, after taking reasonable precautions to reduce civilian injuries (difficult, given the military placements were put there to take advantage of the unpleasant prospect of targeting civilians in the first place).
Oh, and according to this link, the French Resistance wasn't covered by the Geneva Convention for a number of reasons that apply to the Afghan fighters! "Because he was an illegal combatant, wearing civilian clothing, Lt. Guiraud did not have the rights of a POW under the Geneva Convention."
In short. Want to fight, and lay claim to the Geneva Convention? Get a uniform, and wear it! If not, suck it up. Guerrilla warfare is a bitch.
Ah, but the government isn't you and me, and when they 'kidnap' someone, they claim to do it under the PATRIOT Act. See Mike Hawash. While I can't say he's a great guy, or that I agree with him, how can justice be served with 6 weeks of imprisonment with no charges laid, and only getting those charges after enough noise was made by other people?
Likewise with Omar Khadr. Not too many 15-year-olds get tried as adults, and as far as I know, he hasn't even been tried.
The problem is, these acts are committed against 'bad people', which sets a precedent for 'not so bad people', and that is just about everyone.
More important is the actual finding -- if the surveillance was illegal, it falls under the "Fruit of the Poisoned Vine" doctrine...
Do you really think the evidence found from a warrantless wiretap wouldn't be enough to get you disappeared?
And there is the crux of the problem: If you remove rule of law in how evidence is collected and used, and then remove it from how people are treated based on that 'evidence', no one is safe, anywhere, from abuse of government power.
..."one size fits all" is always BS, even in clothing.
That dress seemed to work pretty well for Alice. And if she had to do the shoot wearing a bikini so they could add the dress using CGI later, well, that works pretty well, too. ;-)
Moreover, while it may be true that many kids aren't wired for mat, the best math students are wired for math at that age or much younger.
First, given that they've discovered that a dog can determine the most efficient point to enter the water to get a ball (calculus), who's to say we all aren't wired to do math well? Which brings me to my supposition: Perhaps the reason teaching math at a later age worked just as well was because most kids' brains were sufficiently developed at that point that it was simple to introduce them to concepts their brain was fully capable of handling, rather than trying to force them to figure something out that was developmentally beyond them, thus forcing them to rely on rote and memorization without true understanding to complete the course.
As an analogy, imagine trying to teach a baby to walk early. Sure, you could do try, and you might even succeed. But it would be a lot of work for the baby, he probably wouldn't like it, and it would be a huge pain for you. But would that child be any better at walking than any of his peers by the time he was 3 years old? Probably not.
I'm not normally a grammar nazi, but you tried too hard, and thus stood out.
Who has the same utility as he and she (and it), whom has the same utility as him and her. If the sentence would be grammatically correct with him or her, use whom. If it works with he, she, or it, use who.
Helping the people of an evil regime do morally neutral things isn't evil. Helping an evil regime do evil things is.
The counter-argument may be: Well, why don't those people get rid of the evil regime? There may be a lot of answers to that, but given the disparity between government power and citizen power, and the clear historical evidence of the government's lack of hesitation to harm a significant number of its citizens, internal resistance, peaceful or otherwise, looks pretty hopeless.
Maths is great for some coding problems, I'm not saying it isn't, but you rarely bump into a commercial coding problem that requires any degree of serious maths. I've been commercial coding for nearly 20 years, and I've hit a maths problem 3 times (and the last two were solved by a half-day of Googling).
Every time I hear this, I think of the caveman using rocks for hammers. Sure, it gets the job done, but they could have done the job so much better if only they'd had a better tool.
If all the data was/is housed anywhere else it would be very difficult for the Chinese government to gain _legal_ access to the data.
So, no problems, then.
They think it 'could have' significant implications?
Surely they mean it definitely has significant implications and also hasn't?
Nah, that's just wishful thinking. Obviously whether it has significant implications is still in an uncollapsed state, but they're hoping it will collapse into the 'significant implications' state. Hmm, maybe Schrodinger wasn't trying to kill his cat after all...