Firefox offers such extensive addon capabilities that this really isn't much of an issue. In Firefox the ability to plugin and addon was built into the design from the start, not thrown on at the end as an afterthought, that is why the addon community for Firefox is the best of any of the browsers currently out there. This allows those people who want features++ to have as many addons as they like while reserving the core platform for just the essential technologies. Firefox has shown the way with first class addons and now the other browsers must follow in order to keep up.
Thanks for the story. It is always fun and often illuminating to hear about the inside deals, gambits, and might-have-beens that took place in and around Silicon Valley, the Bay Area, and the surrounding areas during the wild west days of the PC business. Some people like to think that the technology business is about fair competition and products competing on the merits in the marketplace, but too often the truth is that many promising technologies and great ideas fell victim to the back room deals, anti-competitive maneuvering, and quasi-legal bundling that characterized those heady early days in the computer business and continue on even to this day, albeit in more professional ways.
Re:How'd the DRM work out for Spore?
on
Why Bother With DRM?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
This is a case of the developer jumping through hoops to satisfy the publisher. The Fallout 3 devs didn't want SecuROM (although they have been coy about saying anything publicly), but the publisher contract stipulated that SecuROM DRM must be used so the devs found a way to adhere to the letter of the agreement while effectively subverting the SecuROM DRM requirement (the contract was probably written by marketers and lawyers and not techies so it was probably pretty easy to technically subvert or sabotage the DRM requirements). The non-Fallout fans out there might not be aware of this, but this is not the first time that a Fallout game has done something like this to get around lame publisher requirements. For example, the original Fallout game CD included a "setup_u.exe" program so that the game could be installed and played on WindowsNT while still carrying the Windows98 logo on the box since the logo requirements stipulated that "setup.exe" must be the installer name, but said nothing about bundling additional installers (the requirements were re-worded by Microsoft to prevent that sort of work-around in future logo programs). Fallout has a history of tweaking the noses of the authorities, both publishers and government censorship boards, by finding clever ways to adhere to the letter of the rules/laws while actually subverting their purpose (i.e. "drugs" renamed to "chems", "setup_u.exe", and "Med-x" as "morphine"), which are in keeping with the irreverent dark humor and anti-authority themes of the games themselves.
You're a fucking moron. Pay your taxes and shut up, or enjoy your jail time.
Ah yes, ad-hominem, the last redoubt of the intellectually desperate. You must be one of those younger Liberals, the type with more anger and less sense, who becomes completely insane when anyone with the temerity to view the world differently dares to speak. I presume also, by your irate response, that you are among those who earns less, pays less, and generally benefits more from my taxes? I find it interesting that those who support high taxes often pay little or none of them and yet complain with righteous indignation when I object to them helping themselves to a larger share of my property.
Optionally, learn how the economy works.
Indeed, perhaps you should take your own advice. However, if you are looking for a socialist utopia, Cuba or Venezuela are only one plane ride south...
Hobos may be dying of cold in the streets, poor people may die from curable diseases, but hey, at least they've got freedom! Fuck the weak, only the strong shall survive!
Is it the job of the government to see to it that they don't? What about helping out one's fellow man because he is in need? Being generous is not incompatible with freedom or libertarianism and most people have some level of sympathy and moral scruples and would choose to help those who needed it or support private groups that did. However, there is a difference between the government forcing us to give and choosing to give of our own accord. So I don't buy the, "if you let people do as they wish then the world will turn into 'fuck the weak' and 'screw the poor'" argument often put forth by the left as a rebutal to the sort of freedom proposed by us libertarians. Have you ever noticed that those on the left, who insist on government seizure through taxes to support programs, are often amongst the least generous in their private giving? They must believe that just because they won't give anything unless the government forces them to that neither will anyone else.
If I were in his shoes, I wouldn't say a damn word as soon as the police cuffed me except to demand a lawyer.
Actually, it is better to simply say nothing and wait until they take you down to the station and then into private room for questioning. They have already decided to arrest you so arguing with the police officer on the spot will change nothing and could make things worse if you say something that can be used against you. After they have arrested you AND begun to question you that is when you assert your right to an attorney, at the right time and place. You have to give the police officer your name and show him your ID and you may ask, "am I being arrested?", but after that say nothing until you have your attorney present at the station (a good one should be able to get you released without charge under most circumstances, especially if you were smart and said nothing and the police were merely being jerks). Stay calm, know your rights, and don't let their authoritarian gestapo act intimidate you into answering questions or arguing with them on the spot. Remember that police officers are allowed to lie to you or attempt to trick you into incriminating yourself before they arrest you, at which point they read you the miranda warning. HOWEVER, and this is important: if you cooperate in any way prior to arrest then you are required to continue that cooperation, even if it serves to incriminate you. Also, they can do this prior to arresting you, rendering the Miranda warning, which only has to be given after they arrest you, moot. There have been several court cases to establish this (google the precedents if you are interested). Thus, they only way to completely preserve your rights is to completelyrefuse to cooperate from the very start, other than giving your real name and showing your state issued ID (i.e. drivers license).
being a smart ass may not be "smart", depending upon how you look at it or how much you value your time, but it is definitely NOT illegal. REI can read him the trespass act AND they can ask him to leave, but they cannot physically force him to leave or even detain him until the real police arrive (false imprisonment is a serious charge, and unless they had proof of shoplifting then REI could be in BIG trouble for doing it). However in this case, since the Loomis people didn't touch him and neither did REI I don't really think that suing will get him anywhere since the real police, who did the handcuffing, enjoy broad immunity to do their jobs and exercise their professional judgement (or lack thereof as in this case).
If we have any law enforcement readers here on Slashot then please don't take this the wrong way, but it has been my experience that the law enforcement profession in general and the rank and file in particular tend to be authoritarian dicks with lower IQs, less creativity, and generally less ability to appreciate the subtleties of life situations that would allow a more sophisticated person to exercise better judgment. Case in point, treating the geek with an iPhone like he was some gang-tattooed ex-con with a handle bar mustache and a jacket two inches thick. They could have just asked each side for their version of the story, confirmed that he must leave the store and not return (as per the request of REI under the trespassing laws), and then ONLY if the blooger refused to leave, physically escort him out of the store. I have heard high ranking law enforcement officials say that, "Police do what every honest citizen should be doing, but on a full time basis". If that is true then why do so many police officers behave like dicks? Granted, there are asshole citizens out there too, but not as many as the number of asshole police officers would tend to suggest if the police are supposed be a reflection of the citizenry at large.
Note: If you are reading this Shane, then you should definitely pass this one on to 2600 magazine, they will have a field day with it.
when the most of the American right's argument after 9/11 was pretty much a freedom vs. security tradeoff.
That is true yes, and they were wrong to trade security for freedom, but that does not make the anti-freedom lefties right, pardon the pun. I would characterize my personal views as mostly libertarian (with a lower case "l") and thus for maximizing both personal and economic freedom. Indeed, these are the values that the United States was founded upon, but many people today, including some here on Slashdot, are unware that such a position is even possible and become confused when you agree with some of the positions of the left, generally regarding personal choices demonized by the religious right (i.e. gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, burning the flag, etc), while at the same time agreeing with the economic freedoms which are often advocated by those on the right and coming out against the socialist claptrap which is often peddled by those on the left. If they would understand that libertarians are first and foremost pro freedom then they would see that such positions are entirely consistent and NOT mutually exclusive.
Apparently, but some franchisees are complaining (rightly IMHO) about "too much" turnaround time in their restaurants. The "fast turnaround" has always been a selling point, either stated or implied, for any potential McDonalds franchisee. For those of you who don't know or have never owned a franchise many business details are NOT up to you the owner, but rather are spelled out in your franchise agreement with the franchise owners (i.e. the McDonalds Corporation). So for example, if the franchise owners decide that all locations will now offer fancy coffee then you must pay for and have the necessary equipment installed even if you don't think that such expansion would be worth the cost in your particular location, perhaps a truck stop in the midwest were overcooked eggs and plain black coffee are the "traditional" breakfast. In this case McDonalds has mandated that you provide WiFi access to customers because the marketing drones at corporate have decided that all hip restaurants catering to the under thirty crowd must offer free WiFi to be relevant. However, this may be the first time that a new directive from corporate has conflicted with a long standing element of the core business (which many franchisees count on for their profitability), namely fast turnaround of tables in the dinning area.
No, you are not the only one to make the connection. The greens realize that the changes they want to make will never occur, or at least not in their lifetimes, without some sort of coercion which means force (aka violence) because not many people will altruistically choose to alter their lifestyles (i.e. make do with less) for the benefit of others. The more honest greens acknowledge and own that position (aka the "hair shirt" mentality), whereas the less honest ones attempt to trick the people into believing that the bear shit is better than the buckwheat (i.e. we are your intellectual betters and we know what is best for you common people). You often hear the left talking about "collective responsibility" and "sharing the wealth" because they don't want to be seen pointing the dirty finger at those who are actually responsible for making the mess (perhaps because there would be three fingers on that hand pointing right back at themselves). Anyone who studies history should really not be surprised by this. The left has always been necessarilyagainst freedom or unwilling to sacrifice other political objectives in order to obtain it (i.e. freedom as long as nobody has to do without, which effectively means little or no meaningful freedom).
I agree. It must be an option and NOT a forced "feature". AdBlock plus is all about choice; whether or not the advertisers agree with that choice is irrelevant. If they don't like that then they can put their content behind a pay wall with logins and we will see how much it is really worth. I would even be alright with the option being turned on by default, but there should be choices along the lines of:
1. Never ask me to unblock for any site. (i.e. turn off the option entirely)
2. Unblock for this session only.
3. Unblock for this site/domain.
4. Continue blocking this site/domain.
There could be combinations of these options too, for example: Unlbock this site for this session only. For reference see NoScript. Finally there should be a check box / radio buttons for "Remember my response and don't ask me again for this site/domain" or perhaps "Remember my response and don't ask me again for x days". The features of the typical decent firewall should provide a good template for the implementation.
Wouldn't the wireless security cameras and "rear-bumper cams" that you can buy at any big-box store cause exactly the same interference?
Security cameras are generally used to monitor a specific location (i.e. the cash drawer at the customer counter) and don't need to be moved about so they should be wired and NOT wireless. The rear bumper cam on your car is generally not in operation for very long periods of time; you use it to park your vehicle and when the engine is shut down the camera generally is too. The baby monitor, as suggested by the other posters, could just as well use the wireless network instead of competing with it if the companies that make them weren't too cheap to spend a couple extra dollars per unit for the necessary chips (ditto for the cordless phones). The issue is conflicting uses of the frequency spectrum that don't have to happen because the analog devices could be converted to digital and use the WiFi connection instead of flooding the channels with proprietary noise. My issue is with people who ruin a shared resource for their neighbors because they are too cheap to spend a few more bucks for a much better solution (i.e. the baby monitor which uses 802.11 instead of analog). What they are saying by continuing to use these noisy analog devices is, "I don't care if I piss in the community pool because I am too cheap/lazy to get out and use the loo."
Why do we need a whole separate language to do this? If additional abstractions are required or desirable then why can they not be added to the Framework class library or, if new language features are required (again, what is needed that isn't already in C#?), added to the C# language (as LINQ was for example) if necessary? It always seems to me that new languages attempt to solve a "problem" that could be better solved by adding to or improving an existing programming language rather than inventing a new one just to solve a specialized problem area. IMHO, the burden of proof should lie with the new language to justify why the problem is so different or unique that it cannot be adequately addressed in any other way except by creation of a entirely new programming language. For example, the C# and Java programming languages brought a lot of new things to the table vs C++ and previous general purpose languages. They justified their newness and became worthy successors to their predecessors, but I don't think that problems of concurrency and threading rise to the level of requiring a whole new language just to provide a clever solution.
The thread control facilities available in the C# language are already quite extensive and include pretty much every known way to control concurrency presently used in software: mutexes, semaphores, locks, etc...they are all there. For example, the following paper (PDF link), written by Andrew Birrell of Microsoft Research, covers all the basics and explains the various options in C#. If they wanted more robust threading frameworks then why not simply add the relevant classes to the.NET Framework class library (i.e. in System.Threading)?
A textbook is an entirely different kind of project than an encyclopedia.
That is true, but a textbook can still benefit from collaborative contributions in a controlled environment or more specifically, formalized Revision Control. In this way a group of trusted friends and collaborators can aggregate their collective efforts over time, with complete visibility of changes, branches, and rollbacks, to produce and maintain a very high quality textbook(s) covering their area(s) of expertise. For example, I personally use and recommend to others the Subversion source control system and it has proven to be an invaluable tool in my programming work (although it can work for any sort of text editing where version control is needed).
What about subjects which may not be fun but are absolutely necessary to functioning well in modern society? For example, neither I nor anyone else I knew growing up in elementary school loved the droning lessons on the minutiae of English grammar, but I can see now why such lessons were necessary even if I didn't particularly enjoy them when they were being taught. In home schooling how do you avoid the tendency to focus on skills and topics that, while interesting, might not be the best use of limited time when there are basics yet to be learned and mastered?
but I would like to declare a moratorium in Hollywood on the use of black holes.
I also cringed when this old Hollywood standby was dusted off and thrown up on the screen. Seriously, it might have been acceptable thirty (30) years ago when physicists themselves were still working out the details of stellar implosions and black holes and the public, if they had heard about them at all, viewed them as mysterious things that could plausibly be used for some sort of "time warp" or "instantaneous travel", but in 2009 the directors really do science fiction in general and Star Trek specifically a disservice when they continue to perpetuate bad science in their fiction. I think that most people now know that entering a black hole wouldn't result in a trip to "somewhere else" (or at least not anywhere they would want to go) or "time warp". Disney can be forgiven for their 1979 outing "The Black Hole, but in 2009 Abrams and company should know better. In my opinion they lost a really good opportunity in the "reboot" to correct some of the bad physics for which Star Trek has long been infamous (i.e. reverse polarity, warp 15, black holes, etc) and they wasted it just so that the dimmer bulbs in the chandelier wouldn't get "bogged down" in all of that scientific mumbo-jumbo. Is it too much to ask that the physics at least be plausible even if things aren't fully explained?
The devices in question, such as the analog video senders and spread spectrum analog cordless phones, are programmed to automatically scan the bands and grab the cleanest "channel" in the 2.4ghz spectrum (the unlicensed anything goes portion) and blast through any interference (i.e. their response to interference is to switch around channels and shout louder to be overheard by the intended recipient above the rest of the noise). The devices are programmed for maximum rudeness because the customers (idiot parents who need a 24/7 video feed on junior) wouldn't stand for any static in their video stream or on their cordless phone calls to grandma. The only reliable way to shut these people up is to get a larger antenna and a third party firmware that allows one to "increase the power" on the WiFi and hope that the baby monitor crowd isn't smart or motivated enough to realize that their signal is being "jammed" by a more powerful source.
The problem is quite simple really: we cannot have uncontrolled imigration into a welfare state.
The United States is not generally lumped into the same category as the European Union states with their extensive social safety nets, but we are still at least 40%+ socialist here in the United States with massive social security, medicare, and medicaid entitlement programs (among others). Even now the big government entitlement spending of the past ala the "Great Society", which put us firmly on the road towards the massive defecits that we have been piling up over the last several decades, is beginning to stage a comeback with Obama and the Democrats now firmly grasping the rudder and steering us left. Of course, economics tells us that something will have to give: either we control immigration strictly (as the Europeans do) or we abandon the welfare mentality and open wide the gates to anyone who wants to come, work hard, and make it by their own hard work and initiative BUT without any safety net for those who fail. Why can't we have it both ways you ask? There aren't enough resources on the planet for everyone to enjoy the lifestyle of the average American and live in North America so somebody is going to have to do with less or without and there are really only two ways to decide who gets what: fair competition in free markets OR violence (often perpetrated by the state in the name of "fairness" to redistribute to everyone an equal portion of misery). Personally, I prefer the former rather than the later, but I predict that we here in the United States are going to learn the hard way (again) that socialism doesn't work and neither does borrowing your way out of debt.
Slashdot Mirror
Firefox offers such extensive addon capabilities that this really isn't much of an issue. In Firefox the ability to plugin and addon was built into the design from the start, not thrown on at the end as an afterthought, that is why the addon community for Firefox is the best of any of the browsers currently out there. This allows those people who want features++ to have as many addons as they like while reserving the core platform for just the essential technologies. Firefox has shown the way with first class addons and now the other browsers must follow in order to keep up.
Thanks for the story. It is always fun and often illuminating to hear about the inside deals, gambits, and might-have-beens that took place in and around Silicon Valley, the Bay Area, and the surrounding areas during the wild west days of the PC business. Some people like to think that the technology business is about fair competition and products competing on the merits in the marketplace, but too often the truth is that many promising technologies and great ideas fell victim to the back room deals, anti-competitive maneuvering, and quasi-legal bundling that characterized those heady early days in the computer business and continue on even to this day, albeit in more professional ways.
Shooting them in the head is against the rules of engagement for thieves in this class. EA may be working to change that.
Well, there was the You Gotta Shoot 'Em in the Head quest in Fallout 3.
This is a case of the developer jumping through hoops to satisfy the publisher. The Fallout 3 devs didn't want SecuROM (although they have been coy about saying anything publicly), but the publisher contract stipulated that SecuROM DRM must be used so the devs found a way to adhere to the letter of the agreement while effectively subverting the SecuROM DRM requirement (the contract was probably written by marketers and lawyers and not techies so it was probably pretty easy to technically subvert or sabotage the DRM requirements). The non-Fallout fans out there might not be aware of this, but this is not the first time that a Fallout game has done something like this to get around lame publisher requirements. For example, the original Fallout game CD included a "setup_u.exe" program so that the game could be installed and played on WindowsNT while still carrying the Windows98 logo on the box since the logo requirements stipulated that "setup.exe" must be the installer name, but said nothing about bundling additional installers (the requirements were re-worded by Microsoft to prevent that sort of work-around in future logo programs). Fallout has a history of tweaking the noses of the authorities, both publishers and government censorship boards, by finding clever ways to adhere to the letter of the rules/laws while actually subverting their purpose (i.e. "drugs" renamed to "chems", "setup_u.exe", and "Med-x" as "morphine"), which are in keeping with the irreverent dark humor and anti-authority themes of the games themselves.
You're a fucking moron. Pay your taxes and shut up, or enjoy your jail time.
Ah yes, ad-hominem, the last redoubt of the intellectually desperate. You must be one of those younger Liberals, the type with more anger and less sense, who becomes completely insane when anyone with the temerity to view the world differently dares to speak. I presume also, by your irate response, that you are among those who earns less, pays less, and generally benefits more from my taxes? I find it interesting that those who support high taxes often pay little or none of them and yet complain with righteous indignation when I object to them helping themselves to a larger share of my property.
Optionally, learn how the economy works.
Indeed, perhaps you should take your own advice. However, if you are looking for a socialist utopia, Cuba or Venezuela are only one plane ride south...
Hobos may be dying of cold in the streets, poor people may die from curable diseases, but hey, at least they've got freedom! Fuck the weak, only the strong shall survive!
Is it the job of the government to see to it that they don't? What about helping out one's fellow man because he is in need? Being generous is not incompatible with freedom or libertarianism and most people have some level of sympathy and moral scruples and would choose to help those who needed it or support private groups that did. However, there is a difference between the government forcing us to give and choosing to give of our own accord. So I don't buy the, "if you let people do as they wish then the world will turn into 'fuck the weak' and 'screw the poor'" argument often put forth by the left as a rebutal to the sort of freedom proposed by us libertarians. Have you ever noticed that those on the left, who insist on government seizure through taxes to support programs, are often amongst the least generous in their private giving? They must believe that just because they won't give anything unless the government forces them to that neither will anyone else.
If I were in his shoes, I wouldn't say a damn word as soon as the police cuffed me except to demand a lawyer.
Actually, it is better to simply say nothing and wait until they take you down to the station and then into private room for questioning. They have already decided to arrest you so arguing with the police officer on the spot will change nothing and could make things worse if you say something that can be used against you. After they have arrested you AND begun to question you that is when you assert your right to an attorney, at the right time and place. You have to give the police officer your name and show him your ID and you may ask, "am I being arrested?", but after that say nothing until you have your attorney present at the station (a good one should be able to get you released without charge under most circumstances, especially if you were smart and said nothing and the police were merely being jerks). Stay calm, know your rights, and don't let their authoritarian gestapo act intimidate you into answering questions or arguing with them on the spot. Remember that police officers are allowed to lie to you or attempt to trick you into incriminating yourself before they arrest you, at which point they read you the miranda warning. HOWEVER, and this is important: if you cooperate in any way prior to arrest then you are required to continue that cooperation, even if it serves to incriminate you. Also, they can do this prior to arresting you, rendering the Miranda warning, which only has to be given after they arrest you, moot. There have been several court cases to establish this (google the precedents if you are interested). Thus, they only way to completely preserve your rights is to completely refuse to cooperate from the very start, other than giving your real name and showing your state issued ID (i.e. drivers license).
being a smart ass may not be "smart", depending upon how you look at it or how much you value your time, but it is definitely NOT illegal. REI can read him the trespass act AND they can ask him to leave, but they cannot physically force him to leave or even detain him until the real police arrive (false imprisonment is a serious charge, and unless they had proof of shoplifting then REI could be in BIG trouble for doing it). However in this case, since the Loomis people didn't touch him and neither did REI I don't really think that suing will get him anywhere since the real police, who did the handcuffing, enjoy broad immunity to do their jobs and exercise their professional judgement (or lack thereof as in this case).
If we have any law enforcement readers here on Slashot then please don't take this the wrong way, but it has been my experience that the law enforcement profession in general and the rank and file in particular tend to be authoritarian dicks with lower IQs, less creativity, and generally less ability to appreciate the subtleties of life situations that would allow a more sophisticated person to exercise better judgment. Case in point, treating the geek with an iPhone like he was some gang-tattooed ex-con with a handle bar mustache and a jacket two inches thick. They could have just asked each side for their version of the story, confirmed that he must leave the store and not return (as per the request of REI under the trespassing laws), and then ONLY if the blooger refused to leave, physically escort him out of the store. I have heard high ranking law enforcement officials say that, "Police do what every honest citizen should be doing, but on a full time basis". If that is true then why do so many police officers behave like dicks? Granted, there are asshole citizens out there too, but not as many as the number of asshole police officers would tend to suggest if the police are supposed be a reflection of the citizenry at large.
Note: If you are reading this Shane, then you should definitely pass this one on to 2600 magazine, they will have a field day with it.
That is true yes, and they were wrong to trade security for freedom
Had that one backwards, they were wrong to trade freedom for security (been a long day).
when the most of the American right's argument after 9/11 was pretty much a freedom vs. security tradeoff.
That is true yes, and they were wrong to trade security for freedom, but that does not make the anti-freedom lefties right, pardon the pun. I would characterize my personal views as mostly libertarian (with a lower case "l") and thus for maximizing both personal and economic freedom. Indeed, these are the values that the United States was founded upon, but many people today, including some here on Slashdot, are unware that such a position is even possible and become confused when you agree with some of the positions of the left, generally regarding personal choices demonized by the religious right (i.e. gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, burning the flag, etc), while at the same time agreeing with the economic freedoms which are often advocated by those on the right and coming out against the socialist claptrap which is often peddled by those on the left. If they would understand that libertarians are first and foremost pro freedom then they would see that such positions are entirely consistent and NOT mutually exclusive.
Has it changed its mind recently?
Apparently, but some franchisees are complaining (rightly IMHO) about "too much" turnaround time in their restaurants. The "fast turnaround" has always been a selling point, either stated or implied, for any potential McDonalds franchisee. For those of you who don't know or have never owned a franchise many business details are NOT up to you the owner, but rather are spelled out in your franchise agreement with the franchise owners (i.e. the McDonalds Corporation). So for example, if the franchise owners decide that all locations will now offer fancy coffee then you must pay for and have the necessary equipment installed even if you don't think that such expansion would be worth the cost in your particular location, perhaps a truck stop in the midwest were overcooked eggs and plain black coffee are the "traditional" breakfast. In this case McDonalds has mandated that you provide WiFi access to customers because the marketing drones at corporate have decided that all hip restaurants catering to the under thirty crowd must offer free WiFi to be relevant. However, this may be the first time that a new directive from corporate has conflicted with a long standing element of the core business (which many franchisees count on for their profitability), namely fast turnaround of tables in the dinning area.
No, you are not the only one to make the connection. The greens realize that the changes they want to make will never occur, or at least not in their lifetimes, without some sort of coercion which means force (aka violence) because not many people will altruistically choose to alter their lifestyles (i.e. make do with less) for the benefit of others. The more honest greens acknowledge and own that position (aka the "hair shirt" mentality), whereas the less honest ones attempt to trick the people into believing that the bear shit is better than the buckwheat (i.e. we are your intellectual betters and we know what is best for you common people). You often hear the left talking about "collective responsibility" and "sharing the wealth" because they don't want to be seen pointing the dirty finger at those who are actually responsible for making the mess (perhaps because there would be three fingers on that hand pointing right back at themselves). Anyone who studies history should really not be surprised by this. The left has always been necessarily against freedom or unwilling to sacrifice other political objectives in order to obtain it (i.e. freedom as long as nobody has to do without, which effectively means little or no meaningful freedom).
Maybe they could save a few million by building the passenger cars out of plexiglass and eliminating the air-conditioning?
One possibility: they're borrowing money at a low interest rate in order to retire debts that are carrying a higher interest rate.
Do they have any substantial debts to retire? I thought that Microsoft had essentially no debts, just net assets.
apart from consulting a dominatrix which is a misdemeanor
One wonders how such things end up on the books in the first place. Perhaps a certain local politician was prone to such consultations in years past?
I agree. It must be an option and NOT a forced "feature". AdBlock plus is all about choice; whether or not the advertisers agree with that choice is irrelevant. If they don't like that then they can put their content behind a pay wall with logins and we will see how much it is really worth. I would even be alright with the option being turned on by default, but there should be choices along the lines of:
1. Never ask me to unblock for any site. (i.e. turn off the option entirely)
2. Unblock for this session only.
3. Unblock for this site/domain.
4. Continue blocking this site/domain.
There could be combinations of these options too, for example: Unlbock this site for this session only. For reference see NoScript. Finally there should be a check box / radio buttons for "Remember my response and don't ask me again for this site/domain" or perhaps "Remember my response and don't ask me again for x days". The features of the typical decent firewall should provide a good template for the implementation.
Wouldn't the wireless security cameras and "rear-bumper cams" that you can buy at any big-box store cause exactly the same interference?
Security cameras are generally used to monitor a specific location (i.e. the cash drawer at the customer counter) and don't need to be moved about so they should be wired and NOT wireless. The rear bumper cam on your car is generally not in operation for very long periods of time; you use it to park your vehicle and when the engine is shut down the camera generally is too. The baby monitor, as suggested by the other posters, could just as well use the wireless network instead of competing with it if the companies that make them weren't too cheap to spend a couple extra dollars per unit for the necessary chips (ditto for the cordless phones). The issue is conflicting uses of the frequency spectrum that don't have to happen because the analog devices could be converted to digital and use the WiFi connection instead of flooding the channels with proprietary noise. My issue is with people who ruin a shared resource for their neighbors because they are too cheap to spend a few more bucks for a much better solution (i.e. the baby monitor which uses 802.11 instead of analog). What they are saying by continuing to use these noisy analog devices is, "I don't care if I piss in the community pool because I am too cheap/lazy to get out and use the loo."
Who do you think will win?
The basement dwellers?
Why do we need a whole separate language to do this? If additional abstractions are required or desirable then why can they not be added to the Framework class library or, if new language features are required (again, what is needed that isn't already in C#?), added to the C# language (as LINQ was for example) if necessary? It always seems to me that new languages attempt to solve a "problem" that could be better solved by adding to or improving an existing programming language rather than inventing a new one just to solve a specialized problem area. IMHO, the burden of proof should lie with the new language to justify why the problem is so different or unique that it cannot be adequately addressed in any other way except by creation of a entirely new programming language. For example, the C# and Java programming languages brought a lot of new things to the table vs C++ and previous general purpose languages. They justified their newness and became worthy successors to their predecessors, but I don't think that problems of concurrency and threading rise to the level of requiring a whole new language just to provide a clever solution.
The thread control facilities available in the C# language are already quite extensive and include pretty much every known way to control concurrency presently used in software: mutexes, semaphores, locks, etc...they are all there. For example, the following paper (PDF link), written by Andrew Birrell of Microsoft Research, covers all the basics and explains the various options in C#. If they wanted more robust threading frameworks then why not simply add the relevant classes to the .NET Framework class library (i.e. in System.Threading)?
A textbook is an entirely different kind of project than an encyclopedia.
That is true, but a textbook can still benefit from collaborative contributions in a controlled environment or more specifically, formalized Revision Control. In this way a group of trusted friends and collaborators can aggregate their collective efforts over time, with complete visibility of changes, branches, and rollbacks, to produce and maintain a very high quality textbook(s) covering their area(s) of expertise. For example, I personally use and recommend to others the Subversion source control system and it has proven to be an invaluable tool in my programming work (although it can work for any sort of text editing where version control is needed).
What about subjects which may not be fun but are absolutely necessary to functioning well in modern society? For example, neither I nor anyone else I knew growing up in elementary school loved the droning lessons on the minutiae of English grammar, but I can see now why such lessons were necessary even if I didn't particularly enjoy them when they were being taught. In home schooling how do you avoid the tendency to focus on skills and topics that, while interesting, might not be the best use of limited time when there are basics yet to be learned and mastered?
but I would like to declare a moratorium in Hollywood on the use of black holes.
I also cringed when this old Hollywood standby was dusted off and thrown up on the screen. Seriously, it might have been acceptable thirty (30) years ago when physicists themselves were still working out the details of stellar implosions and black holes and the public, if they had heard about them at all, viewed them as mysterious things that could plausibly be used for some sort of "time warp" or "instantaneous travel", but in 2009 the directors really do science fiction in general and Star Trek specifically a disservice when they continue to perpetuate bad science in their fiction. I think that most people now know that entering a black hole wouldn't result in a trip to "somewhere else" (or at least not anywhere they would want to go) or "time warp". Disney can be forgiven for their 1979 outing "The Black Hole, but in 2009 Abrams and company should know better. In my opinion they lost a really good opportunity in the "reboot" to correct some of the bad physics for which Star Trek has long been infamous (i.e. reverse polarity, warp 15, black holes, etc) and they wasted it just so that the dimmer bulbs in the chandelier wouldn't get "bogged down" in all of that scientific mumbo-jumbo. Is it too much to ask that the physics at least be plausible even if things aren't fully explained?
The devices in question, such as the analog video senders and spread spectrum analog cordless phones, are programmed to automatically scan the bands and grab the cleanest "channel" in the 2.4ghz spectrum (the unlicensed anything goes portion) and blast through any interference (i.e. their response to interference is to switch around channels and shout louder to be overheard by the intended recipient above the rest of the noise). The devices are programmed for maximum rudeness because the customers (idiot parents who need a 24/7 video feed on junior) wouldn't stand for any static in their video stream or on their cordless phone calls to grandma. The only reliable way to shut these people up is to get a larger antenna and a third party firmware that allows one to "increase the power" on the WiFi and hope that the baby monitor crowd isn't smart or motivated enough to realize that their signal is being "jammed" by a more powerful source.
The problem is quite simple really: we cannot have uncontrolled imigration into a welfare state .
The United States is not generally lumped into the same category as the European Union states with their extensive social safety nets, but we are still at least 40%+ socialist here in the United States with massive social security, medicare, and medicaid entitlement programs (among others). Even now the big government entitlement spending of the past ala the "Great Society", which put us firmly on the road towards the massive defecits that we have been piling up over the last several decades, is beginning to stage a comeback with Obama and the Democrats now firmly grasping the rudder and steering us left. Of course, economics tells us that something will have to give: either we control immigration strictly (as the Europeans do) or we abandon the welfare mentality and open wide the gates to anyone who wants to come, work hard, and make it by their own hard work and initiative BUT without any safety net for those who fail. Why can't we have it both ways you ask? There aren't enough resources on the planet for everyone to enjoy the lifestyle of the average American and live in North America so somebody is going to have to do with less or without and there are really only two ways to decide who gets what: fair competition in free markets OR violence (often perpetrated by the state in the name of "fairness" to redistribute to everyone an equal portion of misery). Personally, I prefer the former rather than the later, but I predict that we here in the United States are going to learn the hard way (again) that socialism doesn't work and neither does borrowing your way out of debt.