Most stupid thing ever. Astronauts are doomed to drink their own recycled pee since the payload to carry a twelve-pack of beer is too high. So, there is no use for beer in space and the cost to send beer in space is way too high to justify it. However, it is a good marketing campaign idea.
Anyway, what's the point buying a Gucci handbag, real or fake, in both cases you will pay too much for it and you end up to be an advertising zombie for Gucci as well. It's just a f... handbag.
Yes, we are making the short list because our IP laws permit private copy and royalities are collected on blank DVD, CD and a couple of other media and redistributed to the artists as a way to pay them back and recognize at the same time it is impossible to control the phenomenon of file sharing unless we become a totalitarian country, which is not yet in our plans.
You forgot to mention it is all about gathering personal information on customers rather than just communicating with them. Unless you consider communication is a one-way thing. Companies with a Facebook page can pump all about you from your profile and knows about your friends and possibily more depending on how you manage your personal info.
I don't agree with you. If Facebook is to establish itself as the unavoidable social network place, it shouldn't be able to kickout anyone on an abritrarily basis or even weak basis compare to civil rights. This is somewhat equivalent to virtual emprisonment and it shouldn't be something Facebook uses at its own discretion. Otherwise, it's time to reinvent social networking.
And it is not to tell him his: "money that otherwise would have been spent to kill brown people for Jesus in a foreign land." is the other part telling us about the profit of lying. So, in conclusion, it doesn't matter what is your lie, as long as there is profits.
Why should it gives us any practical applications right now or tomorrow? Do you know Boole was considered wasting his time when he put together the fundation of the boolean algebra which is a cornerstone of the logical circuitry? Do you know Maxwell was also considered wasting his time working on the unification of electrical and magnetic forces? Do you know Faraday was asked what the heck the electricity was for?
All pratical things begin with someone dreaming and working on useless things otherwise these discoveries wouldn't have been done if only practical purpose and necessity was the rule. I'm tired reading peoples always asking what it's for as if everything should have a pratical usage right away. We are talking about the foundations of reasoning here, we are talking about mathematics, not about engineering in case you didn't notice.
Don't mix apples and oranges. FSF is concerned about Free Software, Open Source, not Open Standard bodies. This is not the primary goal of the FSF to support everything from the Open Standard bodies. So, this move makes sense provided the goals of the FSF and the community. And in this very case, seems it maybe detrimental for the Open Standard bodies.
It's not about the fact there was or not, it is about how easier it is to secure it at a lower cost underwater at 100 meters depth. It doesn't matter if there was or not any land-based nuclear plant that have been the aim of any terrorist group successfully or not.
Security is probably another advantage to add to those already mentioned. At a depth of 100 meters, it is not easily accessible and it is then probably easier to secure from any unauthorized access.
Since the vast majority of the smart phone crowd just don't care, why did Motorola spent so much time to make sure they have a technology to prevent it? I mean, if peoples don't care, there is no reason to make sure they can't. And for the rest of us, what's the problem?
It's not because they are leaving very North they do not have money. Some are quite rich in some areas. Others are communities which could afford a link to share.
Also, it worth mentions the cost is not the only reason to pick an OSS solution. In fact, this whole thing is primary about openess rather than freeness like in free beer.
Agreed with that. And the whole story doesn't tell us if this old programmer was offered to learn something new, like the new hot emerging technology before considering hiring a new employee on this specific basis. I believe this is very bad human resources management to bring in new employees only because they know a bit about the lastest thingy. The message management is passing is employees are kleenex you can throw in the garbage can when done with them. And guess what? This will also happen to this new guy which know this new hot emerging technology now.
The anthropic principl is a philosophical argument that deal with this issue, however, proving the cosmological constant is not fined tuned for life is a physical argument and then a much more stronger position in the debate.
Right, and in addition, on long boring trips on long and boring highways, the driver's attention is at a minimum. With this kind of system, this driver is no longer at risk.
You miss the point. The point is not about how the thing is implemented and where it is implemented. This is not what this war is about. It is about forcing a codec (H.264) to become the only one living on the Web in the scenario where IE and Safari (or the video layer or whatever you call it, it doesn't matter) do not support anything else than H.264.
That is the reason why Google decided to no longer support H.264 in Chrome. Not supporting WebM and Theora in IE and Safari is very similar to any other monopolistic approach in business. As far as I know, the HTML5 tag is , not . So, Google is playing the same game as Microsoft and Apple removing H.264 from Chrome.
And generally speaking Open Standards are even more important than Open Source. Especially in the long run.
Why? Open Source is a very detailed specification since it is the code doing the thing it is supposed to do. I wonder how you come to conclude open standards are superiors or more important than open source.
There is no problem having different taxation rates for individuals and companies, this is not tax evasion. Tax evasion is when an individual or a company manage to conceal income, profit in order to not pay a dime of taxes on it.
Your argument about the higher executives salaries doesn't hold since they are paying their share of taxes on their own income exactly as you do. What is wrong is when they manage to evade taxation and conceal partly their incomes.
Slashdot Mirror
Most stupid thing ever. Astronauts are doomed to drink their own recycled pee since the payload to carry a twelve-pack of beer is too high. So, there is no use for beer in space and the cost to send beer in space is way too high to justify it. However, it is a good marketing campaign idea.
Anyway, what's the point buying a Gucci handbag, real or fake, in both cases you will pay too much for it and you end up to be an advertising zombie for Gucci as well. It's just a f... handbag.
Yes, we are making the short list because our IP laws permit private copy and royalities are collected on blank DVD, CD and a couple of other media and redistributed to the artists as a way to pay them back and recognize at the same time it is impossible to control the phenomenon of file sharing unless we become a totalitarian country, which is not yet in our plans.
So, it's like a masochistic trip. And then reborn after three days and three nights in the belly of the CS conference.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2guKJfvq4uI
Summary: 8/10
...
Pages: Packt Publishing
Publisher: 468
You forgot to mention it is all about gathering personal information on customers rather than just communicating with them. Unless you consider communication is a one-way thing. Companies with a Facebook page can pump all about you from your profile and knows about your friends and possibily more depending on how you manage your personal info.
I don't agree with you. If Facebook is to establish itself as the unavoidable social network place, it shouldn't be able to kickout anyone on an abritrarily basis or even weak basis compare to civil rights. This is somewhat equivalent to virtual emprisonment and it shouldn't be something Facebook uses at its own discretion. Otherwise, it's time to reinvent social networking.
Dolly Parton: 40DD
And it is not to tell him his: "money that otherwise would have been spent to kill brown people for Jesus in a foreign land." is the other part telling us about the profit of lying. So, in conclusion, it doesn't matter what is your lie, as long as there is profits.
All pratical things begin with someone dreaming and working on useless things otherwise these discoveries wouldn't have been done if only practical purpose and necessity was the rule. I'm tired reading peoples always asking what it's for as if everything should have a pratical usage right away. We are talking about the foundations of reasoning here, we are talking about mathematics, not about engineering in case you didn't notice.
Don't mix apples and oranges. FSF is concerned about Free Software, Open Source, not Open Standard bodies. This is not the primary goal of the FSF to support everything from the Open Standard bodies. So, this move makes sense provided the goals of the FSF and the community. And in this very case, seems it maybe detrimental for the Open Standard bodies.
It's not about the fact there was or not, it is about how easier it is to secure it at a lower cost underwater at 100 meters depth. It doesn't matter if there was or not any land-based nuclear plant that have been the aim of any terrorist group successfully or not.
Security is probably another advantage to add to those already mentioned. At a depth of 100 meters, it is not easily accessible and it is then probably easier to secure from any unauthorized access.
Since the vast majority of the smart phone crowd just don't care, why did Motorola spent so much time to make sure they have a technology to prevent it? I mean, if peoples don't care, there is no reason to make sure they can't. And for the rest of us, what's the problem?
It's not because they are leaving very North they do not have money. Some are quite rich in some areas. Others are communities which could afford a link to share.
Also, it worth mentions the cost is not the only reason to pick an OSS solution. In fact, this whole thing is primary about openess rather than freeness like in free beer.
+1
Agreed with that. And the whole story doesn't tell us if this old programmer was offered to learn something new, like the new hot emerging technology before considering hiring a new employee on this specific basis. I believe this is very bad human resources management to bring in new employees only because they know a bit about the lastest thingy. The message management is passing is employees are kleenex you can throw in the garbage can when done with them. And guess what? This will also happen to this new guy which know this new hot emerging technology now.
The anthropic principl is a philosophical argument that deal with this issue, however, proving the cosmological constant is not fined tuned for life is a physical argument and then a much more stronger position in the debate.
Right, and in addition, on long boring trips on long and boring highways, the driver's attention is at a minimum. With this kind of system, this driver is no longer at risk.
I believe we should have call that starcomputing just to piss them off with their cloud-computing.
That is the reason why Google decided to no longer support H.264 in Chrome. Not supporting WebM and Theora in IE and Safari is very similar to any other monopolistic approach in business. As far as I know, the HTML5 tag is , not . So, Google is playing the same game as Microsoft and Apple removing H.264 from Chrome.
And generally speaking Open Standards are even more important than Open Source. Especially in the long run.
Why? Open Source is a very detailed specification since it is the code doing the thing it is supposed to do. I wonder how you come to conclude open standards are superiors or more important than open source.
Your argument about the higher executives salaries doesn't hold since they are paying their share of taxes on their own income exactly as you do. What is wrong is when they manage to evade taxation and conceal partly their incomes.