I see the problem - at the beginning of the thread, we were originally discussing differentiation between desktop, workstation, and server OSs, and the possibility of a common *OS* for different devices. You read "common platform" and took it to mean a common UI platform when that's not what was intended in that context.
If you're not doing CAD or Photoshop, or some other narrow niche, what do you need another interface for?
From even a strictly UI-centric point of view, your platform still needs to support all those narrow niches or else it's hardly universal. Together all those niche apps add up to quite a non-trivial application base.
Anything that interacts with hardware that's the least bit unusual or in a time-critical manner. Laser marking and engraving, CNC applications, and plenty of other industrial or automation-oriented applications, for starters.
Computers get used for a lot more than what the typical home/office environment demands.
I don't think the parent poster was talking about centralized computing. Rather, he's saying there will be a common platform instead of the plethora of different OS variations for different uses. I don't necessarily agree with that ideal though - for most servers there's no need for a heavyweight UI, for phones there's no need for an IMAP server, etc.
Partially because there's been a concerted effort over the past several decades to make people think it's uncivilized to even acknowledge the fourth box.
not even the most rabid of them would try to argue that a 4MB machine was anything more than the absolute minimum.
Way back when, during the Dark Ages when I was actually doing development for OS/2 1.3, I had to fight to get an 8 meg machine to work with - 4 megs just wasn't cutting it, and 1.3 wasn't anywhere near 2.0 in terms of features/functionality. It *was* fast though, and I loved the primitive VM that 2.x introduced - made loading specific versions of DOS extremely easy for those legacy apps that were picky about that.
I see him just about every year at Epcot's Flower & Garden Festival - still puts on an entertaining show after all these years, and is a great guy to talk to.
When one side presents information to jurors in the courtroom, the other side has the opportunity to challenge that information. Contradictory information can be provided, the credibility of the source can be challenged, or its relevance to the case can be questioned.
The easy solution to that is to (in addition to the inquisitorial elements you already mentioned) simply allow the jurors themselves to ask questions of everyone involved - the judge, the attorneys, and the witnesses, *during* the trial, and to allow for the jurors to have private discussions among themselves at any time. IMO there's also no reason at all for the jury to not have access to the transcript at any time.
For example, the prosecution is not allowed to make up completely fictitious shit just for fun, and present it to the jury in an attempt to sway their opinion.
That didn't stop Mike Nifong before he'd seriously disrupted the lives of the people he attempted to ruin, and before it cost them thousands and thousands of dollars. He got caught - how many haven't?
Without this trust Disney (or somebody else, they are not the only cuplrits) would have done the same thing to LotR as they did with the Jungle Book & Peter Pan.
It's a big deal because the richness of a society's culture is far more important than ensuring your spawn gets to kick back and live fat on the back of something they had no part in creating.
I think you missed the parent's point - copyright still exists on the works, the purpose of which was to encourage the author to create new works. With Tolkien having been dead for more than 35 years now, it's quite clear that copyright in this case is only serving to enrich people that had nothing to do (Christopher's single chapter notwithstanding) with the creation of the works in question, and this stands as an example of real, provable theft (as in "something was taken and cannot be used by the owner") from society.
f the world could be completely disarmed, where all guns would cease to exist, and nobody would have them, period...Nobody. Then I might agree that it would be a good thing.
Even then it wouldn't make a lot of difference. The fundamental problem is with people, not [insert arbitrary weapon]. As long as there is anger, hate, jealousy, envy, prejudice, lust for power, and every other human emotion and failing that drives people to violence, nothing will change.
Unions would be a great remedy, but you libertarian fuckwads are opposed to those too for some unfathomable reason.
How about chilling out with the name-calling just because someone doesn't agree with your political opinions? You're not helping your point and you come across like a immature, petulant child.
Except there were no "stolen goods". When are people going to understand that theft and copyright infringement are not the same thing, have never been the same thing, and never WILL be the same thing?
Amazon had already completed the sale and copied the content to the customers' Kindles, so the infringement already had occurred, and nothing could undo that. Amazon also had completed sales with their customers, who bargained in good faith. IMO, Amazon's *only* legitimate option would have been to leave the content on the Kindle's as-is, and negotiate a settlement with the rights holder(s). I suspect the intervening time was mostly filled by the legal types considering the very public class-action suit they were likely to lose as a result of their actions, and the financial types determining that reinstating the purchases and settling with the rights holders was by far the cheaper option.
Amazon wasn't a victim - they simply failed to do any kind of due diligence, and assumed that just because it was legal for the supplier to sell in their own country, that it was also legal for them to sell in the U.S.
And your post had absolutely nothing to do with what the parent said. Besides, "free market" is a frigging joke in regards to copyright-related sales - if it weren't for government intervention, this flap about Orwell's books wouldn't be an issue because they'd be in the public domain now. *There's* your "free market" for you.
Mind you, the "free market" doesn't work unless people have reasonably good information about the products they buy. The more geeks like the parent poster that get spun up about the Kindle situation, the greater the number of potential customers that know of the severe control issues Amazon has in connection with the product, so I would argue this kind of self-righteousness actually improves the operation of your precious "free market". IMO the DRM is something extremely important that everyone considering the purchase of a Kindle should be aware of up front, whether or not they agree with Amazon's reasons for implementing it. Would you suggest that anyone looking at a Kindle should not understand this aspect of the product with crystal clarity before putting their cash down?
Slashdot Mirror
I see the problem - at the beginning of the thread, we were originally discussing differentiation between desktop, workstation, and server OSs, and the possibility of a common *OS* for different devices. You read "common platform" and took it to mean a common UI platform when that's not what was intended in that context.
If you're not doing CAD or Photoshop, or some other narrow niche, what do you need another interface for?
From even a strictly UI-centric point of view, your platform still needs to support all those narrow niches or else it's hardly universal. Together all those niche apps add up to quite a non-trivial application base.
Anything that interacts with hardware that's the least bit unusual or in a time-critical manner. Laser marking and engraving, CNC applications, and plenty of other industrial or automation-oriented applications, for starters.
Computers get used for a lot more than what the typical home/office environment demands.
Some saddles consist of two cushions where your buttocks go with nothing in between, which works equally as well
This is what the Honda uses, and can be clearly seen when the saddle is deployed about 75% of the way through the video.
No, Mecanum wheels require both a front and rear axle to move sideways. It's still a ridiculously clever idea though.
No, not really. There are plenty of applications that don't lend themselves well to running in a browser.
Often a different kernel as well.
I don't think the parent poster was talking about centralized computing. Rather, he's saying there will be a common platform instead of the plethora of different OS variations for different uses. I don't necessarily agree with that ideal though - for most servers there's no need for a heavyweight UI, for phones there's no need for an IMAP server, etc.
Partially because there's been a concerted effort over the past several decades to make people think it's uncivilized to even acknowledge the fourth box.
Into The Box O' Truth.
not even the most rabid of them would try to argue that a 4MB machine was anything more than the absolute minimum.
Way back when, during the Dark Ages when I was actually doing development for OS/2 1.3, I had to fight to get an 8 meg machine to work with - 4 megs just wasn't cutting it, and 1.3 wasn't anywhere near 2.0 in terms of features/functionality. It *was* fast though, and I loved the primitive VM that 2.x introduced - made loading specific versions of DOS extremely easy for those legacy apps that were picky about that.
I see him just about every year at Epcot's Flower & Garden Festival - still puts on an entertaining show after all these years, and is a great guy to talk to.
When one side presents information to jurors in the courtroom, the other side has the opportunity to challenge that information. Contradictory information can be provided, the credibility of the source can be challenged, or its relevance to the case can be questioned.
The easy solution to that is to (in addition to the inquisitorial elements you already mentioned) simply allow the jurors themselves to ask questions of everyone involved - the judge, the attorneys, and the witnesses, *during* the trial, and to allow for the jurors to have private discussions among themselves at any time. IMO there's also no reason at all for the jury to not have access to the transcript at any time.
For example, the prosecution is not allowed to make up completely fictitious shit just for fun, and present it to the jury in an attempt to sway their opinion.
That didn't stop Mike Nifong before he'd seriously disrupted the lives of the people he attempted to ruin, and before it cost them thousands and thousands of dollars. He got caught - how many haven't?
Next time I want to get out of jury duty I'll just stare at my phone until I'm dismissed.
Better yet, be reading the Wikipedia article on jury nullification.
What's the alternative?
Web space is cheap.
Without this trust Disney (or somebody else, they are not the only cuplrits) would have done the same thing to LotR as they did with the Jungle Book & Peter Pan.
So?
It's a big deal because the richness of a society's culture is far more important than ensuring your spawn gets to kick back and live fat on the back of something they had no part in creating.
I think you missed the parent's point - copyright still exists on the works, the purpose of which was to encourage the author to create new works. With Tolkien having been dead for more than 35 years now, it's quite clear that copyright in this case is only serving to enrich people that had nothing to do (Christopher's single chapter notwithstanding) with the creation of the works in question, and this stands as an example of real, provable theft (as in "something was taken and cannot be used by the owner") from society.
f the world could be completely disarmed, where all guns would cease to exist, and nobody would have them, period...Nobody. Then I might agree that it would be a good thing.
Even then it wouldn't make a lot of difference. The fundamental problem is with people, not [insert arbitrary weapon]. As long as there is anger, hate, jealousy, envy, prejudice, lust for power, and every other human emotion and failing that drives people to violence, nothing will change.
Unions would be a great remedy, but you libertarian fuckwads are opposed to those too for some unfathomable reason.
How about chilling out with the name-calling just because someone doesn't agree with your political opinions? You're not helping your point and you come across like a immature, petulant child.
Amazon can't legally resell stolen goods.
Except there were no "stolen goods". When are people going to understand that theft and copyright infringement are not the same thing, have never been the same thing, and never WILL be the same thing?
Amazon had already completed the sale and copied the content to the customers' Kindles, so the infringement already had occurred, and nothing could undo that. Amazon also had completed sales with their customers, who bargained in good faith. IMO, Amazon's *only* legitimate option would have been to leave the content on the Kindle's as-is, and negotiate a settlement with the rights holder(s). I suspect the intervening time was mostly filled by the legal types considering the very public class-action suit they were likely to lose as a result of their actions, and the financial types determining that reinstating the purchases and settling with the rights holders was by far the cheaper option.
Amazon wasn't a victim - they simply failed to do any kind of due diligence, and assumed that just because it was legal for the supplier to sell in their own country, that it was also legal for them to sell in the U.S.
Lower power requirements. :-)
And your post had absolutely nothing to do with what the parent said. Besides, "free market" is a frigging joke in regards to copyright-related sales - if it weren't for government intervention, this flap about Orwell's books wouldn't be an issue because they'd be in the public domain now. *There's* your "free market" for you.
Mind you, the "free market" doesn't work unless people have reasonably good information about the products they buy. The more geeks like the parent poster that get spun up about the Kindle situation, the greater the number of potential customers that know of the severe control issues Amazon has in connection with the product, so I would argue this kind of self-righteousness actually improves the operation of your precious "free market". IMO the DRM is something extremely important that everyone considering the purchase of a Kindle should be aware of up front, whether or not they agree with Amazon's reasons for implementing it. Would you suggest that anyone looking at a Kindle should not understand this aspect of the product with crystal clarity before putting their cash down?
Sure you do.
I remember back when trolling was actually an entertaining art that took skill, instead of just simple-minded ad homs.