I don't exactly see the original movies having the same optimism or moral lessons as the series, so why pick out the Abrams movies in particular for this failing?
And second, total collapse isn't going to impact the developed world like it will the worst off parts of the world. Places like Africa or Asia would be hit far harder than places like North America or Europe.
Thats an odd thing to say, considering there are millions of people in Africa that still live as if the developed world doesn't exist - subsistence farming using manual labour, hoes and oxen (just like we did a few hundred years ago), little to no access to modern medical practices (just like us a few hundred years ago), little access to education (just like us a few hundred years ago), little access to electricity (just like us a few hundred years ago) etc etc.
These people go about their daily lives tending the fields, trading small amounts of produce with each other and the surrounding villages, living in mud huts, boiling water over wood burning fires and treating broken bones with wooden splints. If someone can afford a token amount of modern medical help, they walk (or get carried) for dozens of miles to attend a clinic, otherwise they make do without.
In the event of a global collapse, these people will simply carry on as before.
We also don't currently have any deployed minefields anywhere in the world. So, it's certainly not a case of "continual use".
I take it that you are ascribing the Korean DMZ mine fields to the South Koreans then, even though they are supplied, placed and maintained by US forces?
Greece doesn't need a currency, it needs liquidity - a crypto currency won't bring that. The entire current issue is not about which currency to go for, its how Greece keeps paying its creditors - if they can't service their current debts, their ability to borrow goes through the floor, and a crypto currency isn't going to reverse that. Greece can't back its own crypto currency with anything it has a monopoly on either because it doesn't have anything that valuable.
Did you even read the link you posted? It merely backs up exactly what I said - they don't have a monopoly on it, but claim to anyway.
The fact that it is a global non-profit doesn't give them exclusive rights to the term.
The fact that they support and promote the open source movement doesn't give them exclusive rights to the term.
The fact that they maintain a definition which they created doesn't give them doesn't give them exclusive rights to the term.
The fact that they maintain a list of licenses which comply with their aforementioned definition doesn't give them exclusive rights to the term.
Basically all that page says is "we made up a definition of 'open source' against which everyone else must measure up" and now they stomp around claiming to own the term. Fuck them.
Creating a definition doesn't give you exclusive rights to the term you are defining - they created one definition, that's all. That doesn't give them the right to claim themselves as the only measuring stick against the term - so saying "its not open source" is nothing more than marketing bullshit from them, because they have not added the proviso of "as per our definition of the term".
...it is not at all appropriate for [TrueCrypt] to describe itself as "open source." This use of the term "open source" to describe something under a license that's not only unapproved by OSI
Seriously, talk about pretentious - sorry, OSI you don't get to decide who gets to use the term, you don't have a monopoly on it.
You do - you can stay on the version of the software that works for you, you don't have to switch to a new version. And they don't have to put new versions of the software out.
2) There are many other values of cryptocurrency... the main one is that you can conduct electronic transactions (over distance, etc) via P2P transfers (without a middleman taking a cut).
Except a middle man does take a cut, because you pay to have the transaction written into the blockchain...
Microsoft was a declared monopoly competing against no one in the desktop market - and actively attempting to prevent anyone from competing with them w.r.t to browser.
There is no such thing as a "declared monopoly", the government court cases we regularly refer to here on Slashdot that covered such issues as bundling IE, preventing OEMs from installing third party software, bullying OEMs into not carrying competitors products etc were the thing which proved Microsoft had a monopoly and that they were abusing it - no one "declared" that they had a monopoly.
And this Google issue is basically exactly the same - its a court case that will decide whether they have any undue influence over the market due to any dominance, and whether that influence is used to further unrelated products or in an anticompetitive manner.
The court case will decide whether they have "the right to bundle their product line anyway they want" - in exactly the same manner as the cases against Microsoft decided the very same thing for them.
American analogy: why does McDonalds force me to use their french fries in a combo deal? They should be required to offer Burger King's fries, or cook the ones I bring form home for me!
Uhm, can't you see how utterly off the point this analogy is, and how badly it fails?
The proper analogy is not McDonalds selling you a product directly, and getting to decide what goes in it (thats the Apple approach - a full product, top to bottom, directly to the consumer and not through OEMs).
The proper analogy is McDonalds agreeing to allow you to open a shop selling their burgers, on the condition that the public wifi in use in the building is one that they also provide. Completely separate products being bundled together for no reason other than McDonalds ends up supplying both.
The problem is not that you can't ship with Google products, its that you can't ship with *some* Google products - if you want the Play store, you have to also have X, Y and Z - oh, and you must also send all search traffic to Google as well.
So basically, you either get to bundle the best app store and go fully Google, or you get to cause your end users issues by bundling the second best app store but get to use your own solutions for other things such as search.
Why should Google be allowed to tie the search provider for the phone to the app store provider for the phone? That's the kind of thing Microsoft got shat on for.
That's a completely different discussion, since this one is about handset makers and sellers being restricted in customising the handsets in order to promote tied products, while your point is about users being restricted in customising the handset themselves.
Microsoft also had put on it the restriction that that they were no longer allowed to restrict what OEMs could install with the OS they shipped to the end user - sounds familiar, doesn't it?
Google is linking several products tightly together - which is what Microsoft was taken to task for doing.
You can't ship a device with the Google Play store installed or available without also being required to have the default search engine for the handset set to Google. Two unrelated products linked by an exclusive requirement (exclusive being it excludes other products).
Android is fast becoming the only realistic third party handset OS you can source as a handset manufacturer - Apple doesn't license IOS, Windows Phone isn't viable for a lot of people, Blackberry are... well, Blackberry, and the rest are bit players with no market penetration at all.
Sure, you can go with a lesser known app store, but you lose a good chunk of apps in the process. So its either go with the popular app store on the popular handset OS and live with restrictions on unrelated things, or go on your own and effectively marginalise yourself.
So tell me, in what world did Google tying the default search engine (and thus ad displays) to the use of an unrelated product on the most successful licensable OS become acceptable?
In England, there is no law REQUIRING you to WEAR a seatbelt. There is a law REQUIRING front dual airbags, and belts to be fitted on all seats and that all safety devices are BSI certified. That is where the analogy ends. Fucking with vehicle safety devices falls under "criminal negligence" and can get you sent to jail. Fucking with your phone's firmware isn't likely to kill anyone.
Are you referring to England UK? Then you are wrong - the Transport Bill was amended in 1981 to require all drivers and passengers in the front of a vehicle fitted with seatbelts to wear them. This became a permanent legal requirement in 1986, extended to rear seat belts for children in 1989 and then further extended to all rear passengers in 1991.
Currently there is a £500 fine if you are caught in a moving vehicle without your seatbelt. It is illegal to remove seatbelts from a vehicle that was sold with them installed. The driver is responsible for all passengers wearing their seatbelt unless they are over the age of 14, and then the passenger becomes liable for any fines.
by means of lift generated through the passage of relative airflow across a curved wing section known as the aerofoil
Yup, thats a helicopter.
and of sustained airflow by means of propulsion caused by the action/reaction of a propulsion unit
Yup, thats a helicopter. The action/reaction of a propulsion unit is necessary for turning the rotors, which is necessary for generating lift. Or you could include a gyrocopter here, which has no connection between the rotors and the motor, but still generates lift through them turning due to forward motion.
Re:IE once again kills innovation
on
HTTP/2 Finalized
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
3) Microsoft will fear loosing to much browser market share, will back pedal and backport spartan.
Didn't work for DirectX, don't think it will work for this.
Re:IE once again kills innovation
on
HTTP/2 Finalized
·
· Score: 1
Windows XP is completely out of support, while Windows 7 is out of mainstream support (as of January 2015), so not supporting them with new features is only right.
They should have taken a leaf out of Washington States book when it comes to company specific tax breaks - the breaks they wrote in for Boeing were written generically but were so specific for the Boeing 787 program that it could not apply to any other aircraft manufacturer. Number of engines, length of fuselage, number of seats, percentage of efficiency increase over previous generation, production to start no later than X etc etc etc. Literally, it could not have been taken up by anyone other than Boeing.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't exactly see the original movies having the same optimism or moral lessons as the series, so why pick out the Abrams movies in particular for this failing?
And second, total collapse isn't going to impact the developed world like it will the worst off parts of the world. Places like Africa or Asia would be hit far harder than places like North America or Europe.
Thats an odd thing to say, considering there are millions of people in Africa that still live as if the developed world doesn't exist - subsistence farming using manual labour, hoes and oxen (just like we did a few hundred years ago), little to no access to modern medical practices (just like us a few hundred years ago), little access to education (just like us a few hundred years ago), little access to electricity (just like us a few hundred years ago) etc etc.
These people go about their daily lives tending the fields, trading small amounts of produce with each other and the surrounding villages, living in mud huts, boiling water over wood burning fires and treating broken bones with wooden splints. If someone can afford a token amount of modern medical help, they walk (or get carried) for dozens of miles to attend a clinic, otherwise they make do without.
In the event of a global collapse, these people will simply carry on as before.
Depends how much the transaction is for - here in the UK we have a £30 limit under which we can simply use NFC touch and go, no pin needed.
We also don't currently have any deployed minefields anywhere in the world. So, it's certainly not a case of "continual use".
I take it that you are ascribing the Korean DMZ mine fields to the South Koreans then, even though they are supplied, placed and maintained by US forces?
No, HIPPA doesn't cover you plastering your own information all over the internet.
That worked well for Zimbabwe, hasn't it?
Greece doesn't need a currency, it needs liquidity - a crypto currency won't bring that. The entire current issue is not about which currency to go for, its how Greece keeps paying its creditors - if they can't service their current debts, their ability to borrow goes through the floor, and a crypto currency isn't going to reverse that. Greece can't back its own crypto currency with anything it has a monopoly on either because it doesn't have anything that valuable.
Did you even read the link you posted? It merely backs up exactly what I said - they don't have a monopoly on it, but claim to anyway.
The fact that it is a global non-profit doesn't give them exclusive rights to the term.
The fact that they support and promote the open source movement doesn't give them exclusive rights to the term.
The fact that they maintain a definition which they created doesn't give them doesn't give them exclusive rights to the term.
The fact that they maintain a list of licenses which comply with their aforementioned definition doesn't give them exclusive rights to the term.
Basically all that page says is "we made up a definition of 'open source' against which everyone else must measure up" and now they stomp around claiming to own the term. Fuck them.
Creating a definition doesn't give you exclusive rights to the term you are defining - they created one definition, that's all. That doesn't give them the right to claim themselves as the only measuring stick against the term - so saying "its not open source" is nothing more than marketing bullshit from them, because they have not added the proviso of "as per our definition of the term".
What about all those nefarious apps in the Android app store? Do you recommend not using Android either?
Seriously, talk about pretentious - sorry, OSI you don't get to decide who gets to use the term, you don't have a monopoly on it.
You do - you can stay on the version of the software that works for you, you don't have to switch to a new version. And they don't have to put new versions of the software out.
2) There are many other values of cryptocurrency... the main one is that you can conduct electronic transactions (over distance, etc) via P2P transfers (without a middleman taking a cut).
Except a middle man does take a cut, because you pay to have the transaction written into the blockchain...
Why is it the worst possible name? Its supposed to give you a brand new view into your data - so in essence it is giving you the benefit of hindsight.
Why the hell should they offer anything? It was a mistake, tough luck. Why does the topic of compensation come up for every simple mistake these days?
So what if you were disappointed - welcome to the real world, sometimes your hopes are dashed after being raised.
There is no such thing as a "declared monopoly", the government court cases we regularly refer to here on Slashdot that covered such issues as bundling IE, preventing OEMs from installing third party software, bullying OEMs into not carrying competitors products etc were the thing which proved Microsoft had a monopoly and that they were abusing it - no one "declared" that they had a monopoly.
And this Google issue is basically exactly the same - its a court case that will decide whether they have any undue influence over the market due to any dominance, and whether that influence is used to further unrelated products or in an anticompetitive manner.
The court case will decide whether they have "the right to bundle their product line anyway they want" - in exactly the same manner as the cases against Microsoft decided the very same thing for them.
Uhm, can't you see how utterly off the point this analogy is, and how badly it fails?
The proper analogy is not McDonalds selling you a product directly, and getting to decide what goes in it (thats the Apple approach - a full product, top to bottom, directly to the consumer and not through OEMs).
The proper analogy is McDonalds agreeing to allow you to open a shop selling their burgers, on the condition that the public wifi in use in the building is one that they also provide. Completely separate products being bundled together for no reason other than McDonalds ends up supplying both.
The problem is not that you can't ship with Google products, its that you can't ship with *some* Google products - if you want the Play store, you have to also have X, Y and Z - oh, and you must also send all search traffic to Google as well.
So basically, you either get to bundle the best app store and go fully Google, or you get to cause your end users issues by bundling the second best app store but get to use your own solutions for other things such as search.
Why should Google be allowed to tie the search provider for the phone to the app store provider for the phone? That's the kind of thing Microsoft got shat on for.
That's a completely different discussion, since this one is about handset makers and sellers being restricted in customising the handsets in order to promote tied products, while your point is about users being restricted in customising the handset themselves.
Microsoft also had put on it the restriction that that they were no longer allowed to restrict what OEMs could install with the OS they shipped to the end user - sounds familiar, doesn't it?
Google is linking several products tightly together - which is what Microsoft was taken to task for doing.
You can't ship a device with the Google Play store installed or available without also being required to have the default search engine for the handset set to Google. Two unrelated products linked by an exclusive requirement (exclusive being it excludes other products).
Android is fast becoming the only realistic third party handset OS you can source as a handset manufacturer - Apple doesn't license IOS, Windows Phone isn't viable for a lot of people, Blackberry are ... well, Blackberry, and the rest are bit players with no market penetration at all.
Sure, you can go with a lesser known app store, but you lose a good chunk of apps in the process. So its either go with the popular app store on the popular handset OS and live with restrictions on unrelated things, or go on your own and effectively marginalise yourself.
So tell me, in what world did Google tying the default search engine (and thus ad displays) to the use of an unrelated product on the most successful licensable OS become acceptable?
ooh, car analogy. OK, we'll start with that:
In England, there is no law REQUIRING you to WEAR a seatbelt. There is a law REQUIRING front dual airbags, and belts to be fitted on all seats and that all safety devices are BSI certified. That is where the analogy ends. Fucking with vehicle safety devices falls under "criminal negligence" and can get you sent to jail. Fucking with your phone's firmware isn't likely to kill anyone.
Are you referring to England UK? Then you are wrong - the Transport Bill was amended in 1981 to require all drivers and passengers in the front of a vehicle fitted with seatbelts to wear them. This became a permanent legal requirement in 1986, extended to rear seat belts for children in 1989 and then further extended to all rear passengers in 1991.
Currently there is a £500 fine if you are caught in a moving vehicle without your seatbelt. It is illegal to remove seatbelts from a vehicle that was sold with them installed. The driver is responsible for all passengers wearing their seatbelt unless they are over the age of 14, and then the passenger becomes liable for any fines.
https://www.gov.uk/seat-belts-...
We haven't had a lot of trouble, we have had a very small amount of trouble that some people want to big up.
Yup, thats a helicopter.
Yup, thats a helicopter.
Yup, thats a helicopter.
Yup, thats a helicopter. The action/reaction of a propulsion unit is necessary for turning the rotors, which is necessary for generating lift. Or you could include a gyrocopter here, which has no connection between the rotors and the motor, but still generates lift through them turning due to forward motion.
3) Microsoft will fear loosing to much browser market share, will back pedal and backport spartan.
Didn't work for DirectX, don't think it will work for this.
Windows XP is completely out of support, while Windows 7 is out of mainstream support (as of January 2015), so not supporting them with new features is only right.
They should have taken a leaf out of Washington States book when it comes to company specific tax breaks - the breaks they wrote in for Boeing were written generically but were so specific for the Boeing 787 program that it could not apply to any other aircraft manufacturer. Number of engines, length of fuselage, number of seats, percentage of efficiency increase over previous generation, production to start no later than X etc etc etc. Literally, it could not have been taken up by anyone other than Boeing.