I hate having to try one way to plug in the cable, then flip it over, then flip it over again before finally getting it right. (It's more challenging than it sounds with a baby in one arm). That's one thing Apple got right.
I use a provider called TruPhone. They are pre-paid and charge $0.15 per minute, and $0.15/MB for data in the USA. If you spend a lot of time talking on your phone or using data while you're out, this isn't the option for you. If you're within wifi 90% of your day, paired with google voice, it could be an option.
The whole "illegal enemy combatant" thing is immoral regardless of whether the "attacks" are physical attacks or just attempts made to disrupt digital communications.
They do have a point though - communications infrastructure is very important both for the economic wellbeing of the country, and to allow other branches of the military to coordinate and defend the country.
There really shouldn't be any reason to not consider traditional armed responses to digital attacks. People can cause damage. A teenage hacker may not have the same violent intent as a suicide bomber or a rogue nation plotting a traditional war, but that doesn't stop them from doing something malicious with serious repercussions.
It sounds good in theory, but like the parent, I also look at our country's history of using good judgment in situations like this, and worry.
Wow, I was originally going to criticize all the early commentators in this thread for not reading what was actually written in the patent application. But after reading it, I agree with all the jokes that were made here. The patent really just describes a user interface for specifying meeting lengths. I can't imagine that anyone at the USPTO actually read this. How embarassing.
You're absolutely right most of the time, but there is the odd lawyer out there with morals. One that may actually recommend something that is in your own best interest, instead of theirs. If you can manage to find one of those, you've found a resource for life!
So it sounds like we agree that there are some things that don't fall under free speech - threats and conspiracies to commit crimes. I completely agree with that, and I think that this bill goes way too far (trying to "protect peoples feelings", as I said in reply to an earlier post)....but that's how I see the world. Some people, such as an earlier poster, appear to think that all speech should be valid - even threats. Other people, such as the author of this bill, seem to think that things like name calling should be a crime.
I think this bill goes too far by trying to "protect peoples feelings". In my opinion, that's an infringement on free speech. But I also don't think people should be able to say whatever they want without consequences. Like you point out, if you say you're going to commit a crime, that could be interpreted as evidence that you're going to commit that crime....but that's just my opinion.
As written, I think this bill infringes on "free speech". But I don't think people should be allowed to say anything they want without consequences. At some point, hate speech can be interpreted as a real threat, and people have the right to defend themselves against real threats.
There's always a fine line where free speech "goes to far". I think this bill is trying to clarify that line by imposing penalties. The bill restricts itself to situations:
"with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person"
The common argument is that free speech should always be free, no matter what. This bill goes against that by trying to establish some limits on free speech.
...but should someone be allowed to say they want to kill all members of [group X]? If so, do members of [group X] have the right to take that threat seriously and act accordingly by pre-emptively defending themselves against the threat?
Yeah for sure, it's certainly not going to be equivalent to an xbox 360, or even a wii....but apple has proven that there's money to be made in very casual games that you may pick up for 20 minutes a day during a subway ride or while waiting at the dentist. People have shown that they're interested in being entertained in that casual sort of way.
It's definitely not as glamorous as a PS3, but they're a completely different market.
I can see some potential here. The iPhone as a gaming platform has been proven in the market already. There are a number of small developers selling games for the iPhone. Probably not because the iPhone is a great platform, but because people are willing to pay small amounts to amuse themselves while they're on the subway or waiting somewhere, and they happen to have their iPhone on them. It's like a Nintendo DS that's smaller and you always have with you - it's a convenience thing.
Game developers realized this, and the apple store made it easy to distribute products.
A small bit of attention to make the device more game-friendly could make it even more attractive for developers to target this platform.
I think this line is especially fitting: "The Commodore 8-bit crowd is the computer world's analogy to old-time Volkswagen bug fanciers in the car world..."
Just because a technology or a product is outdated, it doesn't mean that people won't fancy it for one reason or another. A Commodore certainly isn't the most powerful computer out there anymore, but people probably still like it for the same reason they like the old-time Volkswagen beetles - it reminds them of their youth, a time when things were better than they are now, or perhaps they just haven't bothered to move on and see new things the world can offer.
This is really a great interview. It's a bit long, but I thoroughly enjoyed reading the whole thing. I loved hearing about his escapades with the sheets of $2 bills.
I'm guessing the majority of the applications written to target Linux are server applications. It would be interesting to see if this can be explained by a result only in the server application space, or if more client applications are also being targeted at Linux. Of course, in order to find that out, one would probably have to pay to view the full report.
Usually when I read these reviews, the first page that I read is the conclusions. I typically don't have the attention span to read through the whole thing, so this lets me get the drift of the article without sucking up too much time.
This really is just an extension of Microsoft's business model. From the article:
Aimed primarily at students...
If they can get students hooked to MS products when they're young, especially in these developing countries where the alternative may be Linux, then it's likely these students will continue using Microsoft later on in life, because they're familiar with it. It's a clever move, and really, I'm surprised it took Microsoft so long to start doing this.
No one's ever really tried that before, so testing is critical.
Since this seems like such a new concept (please correct me if I'm wrong; I don't follow plane technology too much), it would just seem prudent to try bending the wings until they break... how can they make accurate judgments and calculations without knowing exactly how much stress the wings can take before snapping?
I'm really not sure that a printed paper book is the proper way to learn CSS methodologies. There are so many resources on the web now, and "learning by doing" helps the content stick much better (in my opinion).
Although it's good that the movie industry isn't completely blind, I think they're going about this the wrong way. It's definitely a good thing that customers will be able to keep their purchases forever (instead of some 'limited time' offer), but I still have trouble seeing the value for customers in a P2P environment where they have to pay the same price as a DVD.
The article mentions the videos will have security features added to them so they can't be copied. Without more details, it's impossible to say how much of a hassle this will be. What if I have two computers and want to watch the video on the other one? The article is a bit weak on the details...
Just another reason to love nettwerk - I was checking out their website (http://www.nettwerk.com/) and noticed that you could pay for music ($0.99) and download a real mp3. No DRM included. While it's not quite as impressive as OGG files would be, it's just another example demonstrating that not all the record labels are RIAA-evil.
I'm surprised that with a $1.5 billion budget they couldn't find a better way to get people into space. Rockets don't seem like the "affordable" answer to me. Maybe a space elevator, or maybe some new technology that nobody's invented yet....but big rockets? They seem so dated...
I love hearing stories like this from places like McMaster. Just *try* not going to class at waterloo or any other heavy school. It can be done, but not without many hours of self study.
Slashdot Mirror
I hate having to try one way to plug in the cable, then flip it over, then flip it over again before finally getting it right. (It's more challenging than it sounds with a baby in one arm). That's one thing Apple got right.
I use a provider called TruPhone. They are pre-paid and charge $0.15 per minute, and $0.15/MB for data in the USA. If you spend a lot of time talking on your phone or using data while you're out, this isn't the option for you. If you're within wifi 90% of your day, paired with google voice, it could be an option.
This shows the gun registration laws work! If only we made it illegal to shoot people in the first place, all our problems would be solved. Oh wait...
The whole "illegal enemy combatant" thing is immoral regardless of whether the "attacks" are physical attacks or just attempts made to disrupt digital communications.
They do have a point though - communications infrastructure is very important both for the economic wellbeing of the country, and to allow other branches of the military to coordinate and defend the country.
There really shouldn't be any reason to not consider traditional armed responses to digital attacks. People can cause damage. A teenage hacker may not have the same violent intent as a suicide bomber or a rogue nation plotting a traditional war, but that doesn't stop them from doing something malicious with serious repercussions.
It sounds good in theory, but like the parent, I also look at our country's history of using good judgment in situations like this, and worry.
Wow, I was originally going to criticize all the early commentators in this thread for not reading what was actually written in the patent application. But after reading it, I agree with all the jokes that were made here. The patent really just describes a user interface for specifying meeting lengths. I can't imagine that anyone at the USPTO actually read this. How embarassing.
People are going to be shocked when they discover that the version of Windows 7 they acquired through a Torrent site (at $0 cost) isn't genuine.
You're absolutely right most of the time, but there is the odd lawyer out there with morals. One that may actually recommend something that is in your own best interest, instead of theirs. If you can manage to find one of those, you've found a resource for life!
So it sounds like we agree that there are some things that don't fall under free speech - threats and conspiracies to commit crimes. I completely agree with that, and I think that this bill goes way too far (trying to "protect peoples feelings", as I said in reply to an earlier post). ...but that's how I see the world. Some people, such as an earlier poster, appear to think that all speech should be valid - even threats. Other people, such as the author of this bill, seem to think that things like name calling should be a crime.
I think this bill goes too far by trying to "protect peoples feelings". In my opinion, that's an infringement on free speech. But I also don't think people should be able to say whatever they want without consequences. Like you point out, if you say you're going to commit a crime, that could be interpreted as evidence that you're going to commit that crime. ...but that's just my opinion.
As written, I think this bill infringes on "free speech". But I don't think people should be allowed to say anything they want without consequences. At some point, hate speech can be interpreted as a real threat, and people have the right to defend themselves against real threats.
There's always a fine line where free speech "goes to far". I think this bill is trying to clarify that line by imposing penalties. The bill restricts itself to situations:
...but should someone be allowed to say they want to kill all members of [group X]? If so, do members of [group X] have the right to take that threat seriously and act accordingly by pre-emptively defending themselves against the threat?
"with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person"
The common argument is that free speech should always be free, no matter what. This bill goes against that by trying to establish some limits on free speech.
Yeah for sure, it's certainly not going to be equivalent to an xbox 360, or even a wii. ...but apple has proven that there's money to be made in very casual games that you may pick up for 20 minutes a day during a subway ride or while waiting at the dentist. People have shown that they're interested in being entertained in that casual sort of way.
It's definitely not as glamorous as a PS3, but they're a completely different market.
I can see some potential here. The iPhone as a gaming platform has been proven in the market already. There are a number of small developers selling games for the iPhone. Probably not because the iPhone is a great platform, but because people are willing to pay small amounts to amuse themselves while they're on the subway or waiting somewhere, and they happen to have their iPhone on them. It's like a Nintendo DS that's smaller and you always have with you - it's a convenience thing. Game developers realized this, and the apple store made it easy to distribute products. A small bit of attention to make the device more game-friendly could make it even more attractive for developers to target this platform.
I think this line is especially fitting: "The Commodore 8-bit crowd is the computer world's analogy to old-time Volkswagen bug fanciers in the car world..." Just because a technology or a product is outdated, it doesn't mean that people won't fancy it for one reason or another. A Commodore certainly isn't the most powerful computer out there anymore, but people probably still like it for the same reason they like the old-time Volkswagen beetles - it reminds them of their youth, a time when things were better than they are now, or perhaps they just haven't bothered to move on and see new things the world can offer.
This is really a great interview. It's a bit long, but I thoroughly enjoyed reading the whole thing. I loved hearing about his escapades with the sheets of $2 bills.
I'm guessing the majority of the applications written to target Linux are server applications. It would be interesting to see if this can be explained by a result only in the server application space, or if more client applications are also being targeted at Linux. Of course, in order to find that out, one would probably have to pay to view the full report.
Usually when I read these reviews, the first page that I read is the conclusions. I typically don't have the attention span to read through the whole thing, so this lets me get the drift of the article without sucking up too much time.
a ge=12
The link to the conclusion page: http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=9187&p
I found it humorous that the first line on that page is "Congratulations on getting this far, folks.".
This really is just an extension of Microsoft's business model. From the article:
Aimed primarily at students...
If they can get students hooked to MS products when they're young, especially in these developing countries where the alternative may be Linux, then it's likely these students will continue using Microsoft later on in life, because they're familiar with it. It's a clever move, and really, I'm surprised it took Microsoft so long to start doing this.
From the article:
No one's ever really tried that before, so testing is critical.
Since this seems like such a new concept (please correct me if I'm wrong; I don't follow plane technology too much), it would just seem prudent to try bending the wings until they break... how can they make accurate judgments and calculations without knowing exactly how much stress the wings can take before snapping?
I'm really not sure that a printed paper book is the proper way to learn CSS methodologies. There are so many resources on the web now, and "learning by doing" helps the content stick much better (in my opinion).
Nevermind, I found it. Here's the direct link to the scorecard and top 100 list: http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?com mand=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9024364
Is there a direct link to the "top 100" list and scorecards somewhere? I've only been able to read editorial reviews of the top 10.
Although it's good that the movie industry isn't completely blind, I think they're going about this the wrong way. It's definitely a good thing that customers will be able to keep their purchases forever (instead of some 'limited time' offer), but I still have trouble seeing the value for customers in a P2P environment where they have to pay the same price as a DVD.
The article mentions the videos will have security features added to them so they can't be copied. Without more details, it's impossible to say how much of a hassle this will be. What if I have two computers and want to watch the video on the other one? The article is a bit weak on the details...
Just another reason to love nettwerk - I was checking out their website (http://www.nettwerk.com/) and noticed that you could pay for music ($0.99) and download a real mp3. No DRM included. While it's not quite as impressive as OGG files would be, it's just another example demonstrating that not all the record labels are RIAA-evil.
I'm surprised that with a $1.5 billion budget they couldn't find a better way to get people into space. Rockets don't seem like the "affordable" answer to me. Maybe a space elevator, or maybe some new technology that nobody's invented yet. ...but big rockets? They seem so dated...
I love hearing stories like this from places like McMaster. Just *try* not going to class at waterloo or any other heavy school. It can be done, but not without many hours of self study.