Although if you *truly* did mean exactly what you wrote, and fully understood what you were replying to, as well as being fully aware of the details of the FCC rules, then I'll definitely call your writing skills into question, because you apparently didn't communicate your thoughts very well, and it sounded much more like you didn't really know what you were talking about. And even if you did, radish's post was much more clear and informative than yours.
Big deal - I get paid to write code, not prose. This is Slashdot, remember? I don't feel it necessary to break out my copy of Strunk & White for every post I make here. You're free to interpret what I post in whatever manner you choose, accurately or not.
As a longtime ham operator, someone that spent a few years working as the lead developer for a company that produces the leading radio propagation prediction software package and interacting on a daily basis with our local APCO coordinators to ensure compliance of my code with FCC regs as regards contour and coverage rules, and the guy that coded a substantial chunk of the software the FCC itself uses to determine coverage and interference charts for coordination purposes, I do actually have a pretty thorough understanding of the applicable FCC rules, particularly the OTARD stuff since it applies to me personally. Whether you choose to believe it or not is not my problem.
I wish people would stop quoting that rule as if it means that anyone living in an apartment building or condo is allowed to install a dish. That's simply not the case.
I wish people would actually read what I write before obliquely accusing me of a lack of reading comprehension skills. My original post said "The FCC may have something to say about that", not "they will have something to say about that". I'm quite aware of the FCC's rules regarding common vs. exclusive use areas, thank you.
They've also made significant capital investments that no one else has bothered making, and they sell a luxury item.
And neither of those makes the first bit of difference, as their *entire business model* falls apart without the government subsidies I mentioned previously.
Perhaps because the ISPs have already extracted quite a bit of money from the citizenry in the form of right-of-ways, outright land grants, local franchise agreements (sounds so much nicer than "monopoly enforced at gunpoint"), and other government subsidies. Last I checked, everyone in the US collectively gave about $200 billion to the ISPs to improve broadband offerings a number of years ago, and we're all still waiting to see results while the rest of the world shakes their head in wonder.
They live in an apartment building that won't let them install a satellite dish, like the majority of new yorkers, so basically they are at the mercy of Time Warner cable.
If Joe Customer buys a Hi-Def movie and windows can't play it, he's going to point straight at Microsoft with the finger of blame - even though the fault lies with the manufacturer of the disc.
Simple fix - MS puts up a dialog box that says, "The manufacturer of this disk has denied permission for this disk to be played on your system. Please contact the disk's manufacturer for more information." and points the finger of responsibility for this crap right back at the studios. MS is already taking heat for the new DRM as it is - I for one won't be running Vista as long as it has that infernal DRM functionality on it, and I certainly am not the only one. It's the operating system's job to manage and abstract the hardware for use by the programs the user chooses to run on the system, not pass moral judgement on said user or his system on behalf of some other business entity. I refuse to accommodate one that does. Besides, upgrading from XP to Vista would require me to shell out several hundred dollars in unnecessary hardware just to be able watch HD content in its native resolution on my current system, on top of the purchase price of the OS itself. No thanks.
If the carriers and device manufacturers sat down for a couple of hours and agreed on a common interface for this, then any phone could have voicemail control on the menus.
But then they wouldn't be able to ding you for 4-5 of your minutes each time you checked your voicemail.:-)
I found the feature set of my Nokia 6030 quite appealing - specifically, the feature where the phone cost $50 and the prepaid plan for a year's worth of minutes was about $100.:-)
No, I don't really talk on the phone that much, so I don't feel it should cost a lot either.
Whether it's "consumer controllable" or not makes no difference - it still allowed "the user" to perform those actions, and it's still not an original idea. Aside from the older VCR tech already mentioned, digital audio workstations have been doing this exact same thing with audio (pause/playback of multiple media streams in real time while continuing to record, not to mention non-destructive editing) for the past 30 years. Applying the same ideas to video (which is just another type of media stream) is hardly a novel idea, and the only reason it wasn't done before was because it wasn't technologically feasible to do it cheaply enough until relatively recently. It's a bullshit patent that unfortunately was not seen as such by the courts.
This is an interesting point you raise. Blackwater gets away with what they do because the federal government chooses to look the other way and refuses to prosecute cases where they act illegally, so the problem isn't really with Blackwater itself so much as it is the government that hires them to do what the military legally can't. Same thing with AT&T and the whole warrantless wiretapping thing - our government is sidestepping the law by effectively licensing cooperative private entities to do its dirty work for it.
Who's to say that the federal government won't simply tell the airlines, "do whatever you want re: security - we'll make sure no court case against you sees the light of day"?
As opposed to the continued violations of the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments (and occasionally the Sixth when the courts get involved) that the federal government continues to impose on everyone on the name of continuing this charade of ensuring safety?
Then they'll make up some PR bull about how they tried to take suggestions from the people but the people weren't willing to discuss it civilly.
Seems to me that by itself is a good indication that the current policy is not approved of by the people and changes should be made, but that's predicated on the false assumption that the government actually gives a damn what the people want.
Not as easily - steels tend to require a much longer wavelength of light than aluminum or tungsten. Most of the short-wavelength light that femtosecond lasers produce will bounce right off of steel without being absorbed at all, meaning you'd have to have a *really* strong laser to work with steel given the ridiculously short exposure time.
Then why did the military get all riled up when they figured out she was bitten, and not just injured?
Because she was then considered to be a biohazard and was being segregated from everyone else as quickly as possible. At the very least, I'd guess they wanted to prevent Marlena McNuggets from getting all over anyone that wasn't wearing a hazard suit.
I fortunately had the opposite experience. I *do* get motion sick easily - I can't read while riding in a car, and it's a given that if I go out deep-sea fishing, I'm gonna be chumming the fish at least once during the trip. However, "Cloverfield" didn't bother me in the least. Weird.
my biggest problem was that the girl who was bit was like bleeding and fainting and noone offered her any medical attention
Assuming you're talking about at the military compound, I'd guess the military wasn't very proactive with medical care for Marlena because they knew it was pointless, having already seen the fate of a number of other bite victims. Better to save a very limited resource for those who will actually benefit from it.
I suppose that would be one thing if the trademarks were actually being infringed. "Scrabulous" is not "Scrabble", nor is anyone likely to confuse the two.
...these are products that have been around for ages and ages, since before I was born in '62, and will probably stay around for a long time yet to come. They've made their money from them and then some.
Wait, you're not ACTUALLY suggesting that copyright be allowed to work the way it was originally intended, are you? Don't you know that it's not about encouraging new stuff, it's all about milking your old stuff for years and years, down through the generations, thus allowing you to sit on your ass and rake in money in perpetuity while ensuring that no one else can ever riff off of your old ideas!
Based on what they say on their site it looks an awful lot like CZ to me, except with a slightly inflated hardness specification. CZ cuts glass very easily, so that doesn't really tell you anything.
Define "often", with cites please. Certainly there is the very occasional mistake, but I disagree that it occurs with great frequency relative to the number of people sentenced.
But the death penalty seems to have zero preventative value and only makes the people advocating it look pretty incompetent (and amoral).
I disagree - those murderers put to death are *guaranteed* not to hurt anyone else ever again, in prison or society. As regards preventative value, I'll defer to those who have studied it in detail, but for the individuals put to death, it's most definitely effective at preventing recidivism.
I allways marvel at those chritians that seem to not understand "Thou shalt not kill". There is not proviso for punishment or self-defense in there.
Please see Exodus 21:12-14, Leviticus 24:17 and 21, Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22-24, etc. for some of the non-existent provisos. Whether one agrees with them or not is a separate issue, but the commandment clearly was not intended to be an absolute prohibition against killing in all circumstances.
Slashdot Mirror
Although if you *truly* did mean exactly what you wrote, and fully understood what you were replying to, as well as being fully aware of the details of the FCC rules, then I'll definitely call your writing skills into question, because you apparently didn't communicate your thoughts very well, and it sounded much more like you didn't really know what you were talking about. And even if you did, radish's post was much more clear and informative than yours.
Big deal - I get paid to write code, not prose. This is Slashdot, remember? I don't feel it necessary to break out my copy of Strunk & White for every post I make here. You're free to interpret what I post in whatever manner you choose, accurately or not.
As a longtime ham operator, someone that spent a few years working as the lead developer for a company that produces the leading radio propagation prediction software package and interacting on a daily basis with our local APCO coordinators to ensure compliance of my code with FCC regs as regards contour and coverage rules, and the guy that coded a substantial chunk of the software the FCC itself uses to determine coverage and interference charts for coordination purposes, I do actually have a pretty thorough understanding of the applicable FCC rules, particularly the OTARD stuff since it applies to me personally. Whether you choose to believe it or not is not my problem.
I wish people would stop quoting that rule as if it means that anyone living in an apartment building or condo is allowed to install a dish. That's simply not the case.
I wish people would actually read what I write before obliquely accusing me of a lack of reading comprehension skills. My original post said "The FCC may have something to say about that", not "they will have something to say about that". I'm quite aware of the FCC's rules regarding common vs. exclusive use areas, thank you.
They've also made significant capital investments that no one else has bothered making, and they sell a luxury item.
And neither of those makes the first bit of difference, as their *entire business model* falls apart without the government subsidies I mentioned previously.
Perhaps because the ISPs have already extracted quite a bit of money from the citizenry in the form of right-of-ways, outright land grants, local franchise agreements (sounds so much nicer than "monopoly enforced at gunpoint"), and other government subsidies. Last I checked, everyone in the US collectively gave about $200 billion to the ISPs to improve broadband offerings a number of years ago, and we're all still waiting to see results while the rest of the world shakes their head in wonder.
They live in an apartment building that won't let them install a satellite dish, like the majority of new yorkers, so basically they are at the mercy of Time Warner cable.
The FCC may have something to say about that.
I rather liked the nomenclature that Clipper (an old dBase III-compatible compiler) used: "Winter '85", "Autumn '86", "Summer '87", etc.
If Joe Customer buys a Hi-Def movie and windows can't play it, he's going to point straight at Microsoft with the finger of blame - even though the fault lies with the manufacturer of the disc.
Simple fix - MS puts up a dialog box that says, "The manufacturer of this disk has denied permission for this disk to be played on your system. Please contact the disk's manufacturer for more information." and points the finger of responsibility for this crap right back at the studios. MS is already taking heat for the new DRM as it is - I for one won't be running Vista as long as it has that infernal DRM functionality on it, and I certainly am not the only one. It's the operating system's job to manage and abstract the hardware for use by the programs the user chooses to run on the system, not pass moral judgement on said user or his system on behalf of some other business entity. I refuse to accommodate one that does. Besides, upgrading from XP to Vista would require me to shell out several hundred dollars in unnecessary hardware just to be able watch HD content in its native resolution on my current system, on top of the purchase price of the OS itself. No thanks.
If the carriers and device manufacturers sat down for a couple of hours and agreed on a common interface for this, then any phone could have voicemail control on the menus.
:-)
But then they wouldn't be able to ding you for 4-5 of your minutes each time you checked your voicemail.
I found the feature set of my Nokia 6030 quite appealing - specifically, the feature where the phone cost $50 and the prepaid plan for a year's worth of minutes was about $100. :-)
No, I don't really talk on the phone that much, so I don't feel it should cost a lot either.
Whether it's "consumer controllable" or not makes no difference - it still allowed "the user" to perform those actions, and it's still not an original idea. Aside from the older VCR tech already mentioned, digital audio workstations have been doing this exact same thing with audio (pause/playback of multiple media streams in real time while continuing to record, not to mention non-destructive editing) for the past 30 years. Applying the same ideas to video (which is just another type of media stream) is hardly a novel idea, and the only reason it wasn't done before was because it wasn't technologically feasible to do it cheaply enough until relatively recently. It's a bullshit patent that unfortunately was not seen as such by the courts.
This is an interesting point you raise. Blackwater gets away with what they do because the federal government chooses to look the other way and refuses to prosecute cases where they act illegally, so the problem isn't really with Blackwater itself so much as it is the government that hires them to do what the military legally can't. Same thing with AT&T and the whole warrantless wiretapping thing - our government is sidestepping the law by effectively licensing cooperative private entities to do its dirty work for it.
Who's to say that the federal government won't simply tell the airlines, "do whatever you want re: security - we'll make sure no court case against you sees the light of day"?
As opposed to the continued violations of the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments (and occasionally the Sixth when the courts get involved) that the federal government continues to impose on everyone on the name of continuing this charade of ensuring safety?
Then they'll make up some PR bull about how they tried to take suggestions from the people but the people weren't willing to discuss it civilly.
Seems to me that by itself is a good indication that the current policy is not approved of by the people and changes should be made, but that's predicated on the false assumption that the government actually gives a damn what the people want.
Not as easily - steels tend to require a much longer wavelength of light than aluminum or tungsten. Most of the short-wavelength light that femtosecond lasers produce will bounce right off of steel without being absorbed at all, meaning you'd have to have a *really* strong laser to work with steel given the ridiculously short exposure time.
Okay mister, you're now out-ethics and labeled an SP! Boy, are you in trouble now!
Space DC-10's dropping atom bombs on volcanoes will be nothing compared to those fireworks :)
:-)
DC-8s, you mean. DC-10s existed only on paper when Hubbard wrote the tripe revered by the Scientologists as OT III.
Then why did the military get all riled up when they figured out she was bitten, and not just injured?
Because she was then considered to be a biohazard and was being segregated from everyone else as quickly as possible. At the very least, I'd guess they wanted to prevent Marlena McNuggets from getting all over anyone that wasn't wearing a hazard suit.
I fortunately had the opposite experience. I *do* get motion sick easily - I can't read while riding in a car, and it's a given that if I go out deep-sea fishing, I'm gonna be chumming the fish at least once during the trip. However, "Cloverfield" didn't bother me in the least. Weird.
my biggest problem was that the girl who was bit was like bleeding and fainting and noone offered her any medical attention
Assuming you're talking about at the military compound, I'd guess the military wasn't very proactive with medical care for Marlena because they knew it was pointless, having already seen the fate of a number of other bite victims. Better to save a very limited resource for those who will actually benefit from it.
I suppose that would be one thing if the trademarks were actually being infringed. "Scrabulous" is not "Scrabble", nor is anyone likely to confuse the two.
...these are products that have been around for ages and ages, since before I was born in '62, and will probably stay around for a long time yet to come. They've made their money from them and then some.
Wait, you're not ACTUALLY suggesting that copyright be allowed to work the way it was originally intended, are you? Don't you know that it's not about encouraging new stuff, it's all about milking your old stuff for years and years, down through the generations, thus allowing you to sit on your ass and rake in money in perpetuity while ensuring that no one else can ever riff off of your old ideas!
Based on what they say on their site it looks an awful lot like CZ to me, except with a slightly inflated hardness specification. CZ cuts glass very easily, so that doesn't really tell you anything.
Define "often", with cites please. Certainly there is the very occasional mistake, but I disagree that it occurs with great frequency relative to the number of people sentenced.
But the death penalty seems to have zero preventative value and only makes the people advocating it look pretty incompetent (and amoral).
I disagree - those murderers put to death are *guaranteed* not to hurt anyone else ever again, in prison or society. As regards preventative value, I'll defer to those who have studied it in detail, but for the individuals put to death, it's most definitely effective at preventing recidivism.
I allways marvel at those chritians that seem to not understand "Thou shalt not kill". There is not proviso for punishment or self-defense in there.
Please see Exodus 21:12-14, Leviticus 24:17 and 21, Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22-24, etc. for some of the non-existent provisos. Whether one agrees with them or not is a separate issue, but the commandment clearly was not intended to be an absolute prohibition against killing in all circumstances.
Don't forget the whole "see your enemies driven before you" part, too.