From what I understand plutonium is significantly worse than uranium for decay times, that and it's poisonous. The problem that people are failing to realize is that now we have no option but to use Nuclear power. If crackheads like the man featured for the article hadn't been complaining about nuclear plants, we'd have cleaner air, and less radiation to worry about.
While we are trying to build bigger fusion plants now, and understanding how bubble fusion works it only makes sense to continue to build fission plants to meet current demand. With the public behind new methods there wont be such a problem bringing these better, cleaner ideas to market.
Thats not actually correct. When you buy Monopoly, you are enforcing Parker Brothers market dominance, and adding to the original value of their product. If I know that I can sell monopoly for $2 after playing it for 5 years, it is worth $2 more than if I cannot sell it.
From another perspective, if the person who previously bought a parker brothers product has spare spending money, they will be somewhat more likely to buy another parker brothers product (this last one is influenced highly by the satisfaction of the customer).
So basically from customers making these sales, Microsofts product now has a higher value. Considering that most of the licences being sold are not the same license that microsoft is selling now (e.g., selling 2k for xp upgrade), the offering does not lower demand for the new product, and there is an overall increase in demand.
If Microsoft is smart about this, they will increase prices of their new products rather than try to shut down another "racket".
The question seems retorical but I'll answer it anyway. If the people being hired are all 25 years old, the problem will remain. I have seen more and more offerings or game developer educations. Most of these are reduced computer science programs at universities, which frankly doesn't solve the problem.
Recruiting earlier will require a lower education program which teaches programming. Perhaps special programs at high schools, or more likely compartmentalized education from certification schools. I'm not sure if an option like these would help developers or not, but it seems logical for it to be an option if publishers want better developers to work with.
You truely are meddlesome, but I'll take a chance on you not being a total troll.
How can you consider a Courthouse a public place if there are strict requirements as to who can enter? Remember, it is supposed to be owned by the state, and therefore owned by the people.
Actually many prisons dont allow even guards to hold firearms. As a convicted criminal you are subject to lesser rights, that's the way things are and that's the way they have to be. Laws are already in place to restrict the use of firearms to responsible citizens. Before you can think of bringing a weapon into a courthouse you must hold a concealed weapons permit, which requires a lot of scrutiny. It's fair to say that any citizen who holds a concealed weapons permit is more responsible than your average law enforcement officer.
Of course the biggest burden is that due to the stringent rules, everyone is searched in some capacity before they enter a courthouse. I think that is very much against the intent of the higher law and therefor I'm against it.
On the upside, there aren't many state laws which will land you in prison if you break them. State law seems like a place that is reserved for distributed attacks, traffic laws are quite uniform from state to state, and yet they are not federal laws. My guess is this is because they would get shot down if the law was a single entity, and by pushing the laws to states individually the powers that be have evaded any real scrutiny.
I would call your bluff on that one. If there is anything in the law that follows what you say (and likely there is), it is likely spread between several different sections with no references from one to another. In Florida, the law gives specific amounts for moving violations and other traffic citations. These amounts are not what you will get charged if you are cited with a traffic violation, the courts take about 30% extra. Nowhere in the same clause is there a reference to this fact.
This of course is trivial. The right to bear arms (2nd amendment) would allow any US citizen to carry a firearm inside a court room. It's really much more obvious what lower level governments are doing to hijack higher laws in this case.
Very true; If an attacker already has enough privileges to run a hardware level attack (fake an overheat), they already have root access. On the other hand, physical access is always a failure already. The only thing I would use an attack like this against would be a system storing an encrypted volume. Even then you can usually get around the encryption in some more traditional way.
I'm sure rules like the one I mentioned are different from county to county, but the principle is the same. If an average citizen tries to do anything in a courthouse, they'll get confused quickly because thats the way they want it. The signs I read said nothing of 'official purposes', and when you are taking nail clippers and scissors from people, I'd say that an officer should have more reason than a generic one to carry a weapon. After all, citizens are expected to have good higene in a courthouse, and the use of nailclippers, or scissors (hair cutting) can help in that capacity.
It would be nice if an average citizen could get access to forclosures and reposessions for the purpose of saving money. The current behavior makes it VERY difficult to get at that kind of information, which obviously renders the information non-public.
Its this very kind of behavior of breaking laws at a lower level that makes laws so confusing and irrelevent. I'm certain that when the Florida congress decided to make records public, the kind of procedure now necessary to gain access to these records was not on their mind. In fact, I would say that this process was just what they were trying to avoid.
The thing is these records are required to be public. A lot of counties in Florida just decide to blank out all important information, or simply not publish the entire document on their web sites. I would have to argue that the county in question is actually do what is required by law, and nothing less.
It's really not fair at all to say that a record is "Public" if you have to drive to the office and pay $4/hr for a parking spot (if you're lucky enough to find one). Besides, most courhouses have rules like "no weapons", where you will see every officer in the place carrying a gun.
Should people be subjected to phishing? no. The information that is on record at courthouses shouldn't be enough to make phishing targets, but that's not the fault of the courthouse.
You probably don't need to go to china or india to see some ugly pollution. A lot of cities have bus systems, and if you follow one on a bike you'll very nearly choke to death from the massive amounts of dirty diesel they are burning.
Environmental concerns don't have to be global, there are enough reasons to keep things sensible and clean right in your home town.
Legitimately collect how? The RIAA doesn't hold copyrights. Second, the maximum penalties for "crimes" are hardly ever assigned, and always determined by a judge. I dont think the RIAA has won a court battle like this one, and they've lost a few already.
I think a lot of people have been biased by how traffic court works. There is no publicly paid official who says you're guilty in a real court case. The RIAA can't come up with legitimate evidence, so if you shuffle a significantly gruesome amount of papers you should be able to beat them.
All of this said, get off of Kazaa already! If the people who are getting settlement offers weren't so dumb, they'd probably not settle so blindly.
A license functions as a set of rules for using a item. You have to follow the rules if you wish to be a "good citizen". The problem of just stopping with a.license file is that you can't establish the date of creation in court. There are significant problems with registering a copyright. They are basically geared for large corporations, and at registration you are required to give expected income from the item. It's a lot of work to go through, and I'm sure many open source projects are not protected by the legal construct that is a copyright.
2) Maximum cruising speed is attained in a single revolution. No other animal or engine can claim the same
I'm really unclear how you can claim that human walking/running is achieved in a single revolution. Certainly, there is a huge curve of surge in the first revolution, but nothing as grandiose as you claim.
This is where apple makes most of their money. If they can get you to buy a intel mac, why would they worry about os sales? Besides with the problems vista is having, this may well result in more pcs on osx.
Wine is not an OS, it's a set of libraries which are incomplete. Second, virtualization is not required to run C programs on different operating systems. The idea is you submit the source, specify the compilers/OS's to use and hope for the best(worst). Despite the unexciting design of the page, the write-up is actually quite good.
Sometimes you just have to purposefully avoid stating something as strong as it actually is. In this case Copyrights are in effect for about 100 years, and it would be really hard to argue the benefits of copyrights over 10 years. If I had stated 90% as I thought, the moderators probably would have went against me.
It's nice that you see things the same way though.
Well, dont let me turn this topic into a creation/evolution debate... When you say that it is necessary to disrespect a belief that the earth is only a few thousand years old, I think you are assuming a few things.
1) It is easily demonstrated that your view is correct 2) The opposing view has too many problems for it to be considered correct.
In the case of the age of the earth, there are far more problems with it being billions of years old than being a few thousand years old. You can't truely disrespect this belief because the balance of information is fairly solid on both sides.
This group did studies on two occasions, once stating that prayer helps, another time stating that it doesn't. There's a simple logical argument here; the accumulation of a positive effect the first time, and no effect the second time means a net positive effect. Of course even without this argument, it's still a half/half probability of the truth being on either side. In this case it's absurd to disrespect an opposing view, even if you have strong feelings which cause you to reject the opposing view.
You misunderstood; The GPL is protected by Copyright, but that doesn't make the GPL unique. The GPL is unique for the rules set down in the GPL. Since code covered by the GPL can be considered software, the GPL is a license. If you dont want to follow the license, you can't use the code. Even without a copyright we could have a GPL, but if someone took it to court people would argue about whose was the code. This is still however a problem for most GPLd works (no registered copyright on many of them), and if there was no copyright protection then coders who avoided the GPL would only be worse off than those who used it.
In essense copyrights are supposed to protect those who bring content to others. Right now, 70% of copyright law does the opposite of that.
Slashdot Mirror
From what I understand plutonium is significantly worse than uranium for decay times, that and it's poisonous. The problem that people are failing to realize is that now we have no option but to use Nuclear power. If crackheads like the man featured for the article hadn't been complaining about nuclear plants, we'd have cleaner air, and less radiation to worry about.
While we are trying to build bigger fusion plants now, and understanding how bubble fusion works it only makes sense to continue to build fission plants to meet current demand. With the public behind new methods there wont be such a problem bringing these better, cleaner ideas to market.
Thats not actually correct. When you buy Monopoly, you are enforcing Parker Brothers market dominance, and adding to the original value of their product. If I know that I can sell monopoly for $2 after playing it for 5 years, it is worth $2 more than if I cannot sell it.
From another perspective, if the person who previously bought a parker brothers product has spare spending money, they will be somewhat more likely to buy another parker brothers product (this last one is influenced highly by the satisfaction of the customer).
So basically from customers making these sales, Microsofts product now has a higher value. Considering that most of the licences being sold are not the same license that microsoft is selling now (e.g., selling 2k for xp upgrade), the offering does not lower demand for the new product, and there is an overall increase in demand.
If Microsoft is smart about this, they will increase prices of their new products rather than try to shut down another "racket".
The question seems retorical but I'll answer it anyway. If the people being hired are all 25 years old, the problem will remain. I have seen more and more offerings or game developer educations. Most of these are reduced computer science programs at universities, which frankly doesn't solve the problem. Recruiting earlier will require a lower education program which teaches programming. Perhaps special programs at high schools, or more likely compartmentalized education from certification schools. I'm not sure if an option like these would help developers or not, but it seems logical for it to be an option if publishers want better developers to work with.
Whoah, I just got a picture of a wing on my transparent case. You think I can get one from AEM?
IT jobs are gained by experience, and usually a job that requires a "Senior Software Engineer" pays better than one that requires a "programmer".
Your probably a software engineer with the wrong title.
You truely are meddlesome, but I'll take a chance on you not being a total troll.
How can you consider a Courthouse a public place if there are strict requirements as to who can enter?
Remember, it is supposed to be owned by the state, and therefore owned by the people.
Actually many prisons dont allow even guards to hold firearms. As a convicted criminal you are subject to lesser rights, that's the way things are and that's the way they have to be. Laws are already in place to restrict the use of firearms to responsible citizens. Before you can think of bringing a weapon into a courthouse you must hold a concealed weapons permit, which requires a lot of scrutiny. It's fair to say that any citizen who holds a concealed weapons permit is more responsible than your average law enforcement officer.
Of course the biggest burden is that due to the stringent rules, everyone is searched in some capacity before they enter a courthouse. I think that is very much against the intent of the higher law and therefor I'm against it.
On the upside, there aren't many state laws which will land you in prison if you break them. State law seems like a place that is reserved for distributed attacks, traffic laws are quite uniform from state to state, and yet they are not federal laws. My guess is this is because they would get shot down if the law was a single entity, and by pushing the laws to states individually the powers that be have evaded any real scrutiny.
I would call your bluff on that one. If there is anything in the law that follows what you say (and likely there is), it is likely spread between several different sections with no references from one to another. In Florida, the law gives specific amounts for moving violations and other traffic citations. These amounts are not what you will get charged if you are cited with a traffic violation, the courts take about 30% extra. Nowhere in the same clause is there a reference to this fact.
This of course is trivial. The right to bear arms (2nd amendment) would allow any US citizen to carry a firearm inside a court room. It's really much more obvious what lower level governments are doing to hijack higher laws in this case.
Very true; If an attacker already has enough privileges to run a hardware level attack (fake an overheat), they already have root access. On the other hand, physical access is always a failure already. The only thing I would use an attack like this against would be a system storing an encrypted volume. Even then you can usually get around the encryption in some more traditional way.
I'm sure rules like the one I mentioned are different from county to county, but the principle is the same. If an average citizen tries to do anything in a courthouse, they'll get confused quickly because thats the way they want it. The signs I read said nothing of 'official purposes', and when you are taking nail clippers and scissors from people, I'd say that an officer should have more reason than a generic one to carry a weapon. After all, citizens are expected to have good higene in a courthouse, and the use of nailclippers, or scissors (hair cutting) can help in that capacity.
It would be nice if an average citizen could get access to forclosures and reposessions for the purpose of saving money. The current behavior makes it VERY difficult to get at that kind of information, which obviously renders the information non-public.
Its this very kind of behavior of breaking laws at a lower level that makes laws so confusing and irrelevent. I'm certain that when the Florida congress decided to make records public, the kind of procedure now necessary to gain access to these records was not on their mind. In fact, I would say that this process was just what they were trying to avoid.
Broward County and Sue Baldwin are only doing what is required by Florida Law. They cannot be a target, but that does leave the largest of the 3.
The thing is these records are required to be public. A lot of counties in Florida just decide to blank out all important information, or simply not publish the entire document on their web sites. I would have to argue that the county in question is actually do what is required by law, and nothing less.
It's really not fair at all to say that a record is "Public" if you have to drive to the office and pay $4/hr for a parking spot (if you're lucky enough to find one). Besides, most courhouses have rules like "no weapons", where you will see every officer in the place carrying a gun.
Should people be subjected to phishing? no. The information that is on record at courthouses shouldn't be enough to make phishing targets, but that's not the fault of the courthouse.
Dell was actually fairly early to adopt PCI express. Before the Intel Macs, but I dont know if apple was using pci express with their g5s.
The guy is obviously lying, and I cant see why. If I want a dell it's only because they are intel's lapdog, and therefor a cheap option.
You probably don't need to go to china or india to see some ugly pollution. A lot of cities have bus systems, and if you follow one on a bike you'll very nearly choke to death from the massive amounts of dirty diesel they are burning.
Environmental concerns don't have to be global, there are enough reasons to keep things sensible and clean right in your home town.
As dumb as the summary is, there's a simple solution to this. Only pay for legit ads.
Legitimately collect how? The RIAA doesn't hold copyrights. Second, the maximum penalties for "crimes" are hardly ever assigned, and always determined by a judge. I dont think the RIAA has won a court battle like this one, and they've lost a few already.
I think a lot of people have been biased by how traffic court works. There is no publicly paid official who says you're guilty in a real court case. The RIAA can't come up with legitimate evidence, so if you shuffle a significantly gruesome amount of papers you should be able to beat them.
All of this said, get off of Kazaa already! If the people who are getting settlement offers weren't so dumb, they'd probably not settle so blindly.
Obviously its because all the google developers are using pine... duh.
A license functions as a set of rules for using a item. You have to follow the rules if you wish to be a "good citizen". The problem of just stopping with a .license file is that you can't establish the date of creation in court. There are significant problems with registering a copyright. They are basically geared for large corporations, and at registration you are required to give expected income from the item. It's a lot of work to go through, and I'm sure many open source projects are not protected by the legal construct that is a copyright.
This is where apple makes most of their money. If they can get you to buy a intel mac, why would they worry about os sales? Besides with the problems vista is having, this may well result in more pcs on osx.
Wine is not an OS, it's a set of libraries which are incomplete. Second, virtualization is not required to run C programs on different operating systems. The idea is you submit the source, specify the compilers/OS's to use and hope for the best(worst). Despite the unexciting design of the page, the write-up is actually quite good.
Yeah, but why pay when you can just get the HACKER to go to jail and be charged as a terrorist?
Sometimes you just have to purposefully avoid stating something as strong as it actually is. In this case Copyrights are in effect for about 100 years, and it would be really hard to argue the benefits of copyrights over 10 years. If I had stated 90% as I thought, the moderators probably would have went against me.
It's nice that you see things the same way though.
Well, dont let me turn this topic into a creation/evolution debate...
When you say that it is necessary to disrespect a belief that the earth is only a few thousand years old, I think you are assuming a few things.
1) It is easily demonstrated that your view is correct
2) The opposing view has too many problems for it to be considered correct.
In the case of the age of the earth, there are far more problems with it being billions of years old than being a few thousand years old. You can't truely disrespect this belief because the balance of information is fairly solid on both sides.
This group did studies on two occasions, once stating that prayer helps, another time stating that it doesn't. There's a simple logical argument here; the accumulation of a positive effect the first time, and no effect the second time means a net positive effect. Of course even without this argument, it's still a half/half probability of the truth being on either side. In this case it's absurd to disrespect an opposing view, even if you have strong feelings which cause you to reject the opposing view.
You misunderstood; The GPL is protected by Copyright, but that doesn't make the GPL unique. The GPL is unique for the rules set down in the GPL. Since code covered by the GPL can be considered software, the GPL is a license. If you dont want to follow the license, you can't use the code. Even without a copyright we could have a GPL, but if someone took it to court people would argue about whose was the code. This is still however a problem for most GPLd works (no registered copyright on many of them), and if there was no copyright protection then coders who avoided the GPL would only be worse off than those who used it.
In essense copyrights are supposed to protect those who bring content to others. Right now, 70% of copyright law does the opposite of that.