Music is never truly "obsolete". Older artists/albums may be listened to less frequently than newer artists/albums, but there's nothing stopping someone today deciding that The Beatles is their new favourite band. Nobody stops listening to an artist simply because it's a new year and the new line of artists is coming out.
Fashion does become obsolete. Although old ideas get recycled in new trends, as soon as a trend passes and gets replaced by a new trend, that old trend is obsolete.
Look at it this way: a fashionable clothing store can sell new styles that are influenced by an old trend, but cannot simply sell old clothes. On the other hand, music stores can, and do, sell albums released decades ago.
The iPad is a limited device. It is not designed to replace the desktop. It is designed to be an extension of it.
I think you've pretty much got it right in your post, except the above quoted comment. I'd say that, for the reasons you explained, the iPad is intended to replace the desktop for many people.
Basically, there was a time when only nerds had computers. Then, as years went by, computers started to show up in the workplace, then spread to the home, and now they're everywhere, and everyone has them. And most people find them to be frustrating, annoying, incomprehensible machines.
Now, there is a movement away from general purpose computers and more toward special purpose devices. The iPad is one of these. What is likely going to happen is that most people— and by this I mean ordinary non-nerds— are going to realize that they don't need a general purpose computer. They have a handful of tasks that they need to accomplish, and there are/will be smaller, simpler, cheaper devices with which they can accomplish those tasks.
The nerds, meanwhile, still want/need computers, and we will still use them. Offices will likely continue to use them. But I don't think it's unreasonable to think that "ordinary" people will, more and more, as time goes by, get rid of their desktop computers at home.
That would be ASCAP. Almost as equally evil. They had a stultifying effect on country music for a long time, don't know about other genres.
ASCAP is a Performing Rights Organization. What you're looking for is a publisher, and often those fall under the same umbrella as the record label, so ultimately it comes back to the RIAA again.
If he's a contractor, then the contract must be explicit, but if he's an employee, it's automatically considered "work-for-hire", and therefore the employer is the legal "author" of the work.
It would be nice if Firefox did improve performance though. Would be a lot more significant than a trimmed down interface while the program runs just as slow.
They're working on that. Unlike the summary, the actual presentation gives information about more than just "slimming down the UI to make it seem faster". Their first of three stated goals is "making Firefox super-duper fast". If you look at the slides here, the "fast" discussion starts at slide 23.
The university person gets fired because a lot of gay assholes insist on bringing this issue OUT of the bedroom and into my kids primary school with Heather Has Two Mommies, and visits by homosexuals and other sensitivity training.
They're not bringing gay sex out of the bedroom and into your kid's classroom. They're bringing reality there. Same sex partnerships exist. Accept it and move on.
Then a bunch of other gay assholes want to parade down my main street acting like total degenerates.
They have to watch straight people flaunt their sexuality in public for 364 days and 23 hours out of every year. For ONE STINKIN' HOUR out of the year, they ask to be able to flaunt their own. If that's too much to ask, then you truly are a selfish cunt.
Then another bunch of gay assholes who really aren't very good workers sued their employers claiming the reason they were fired was because they were gay, not that they sucked at doing actual work.
If that's truly the case, then hopefully the court will rule accordingly. Even if it's true as you described it, the fact that someone abuses the legitimate protection for people who might otherwise have been fired for non-work related reasons doesn't mean that such protections shouldn't exist. If all systems that got abused were dismantled, we'd have no systems whatsoever.
Then a huge bunch of gay assholes think that I MUST be legislated in liking them and their behavior.
Oh? Where do you find this legislation? In your ass? Wake the fuck up, all they ask for is that they not be oppressed, that they get all the rights and privileges that you have (and not a single one more, despite what right-wing fuckwads like to claim), and that you respect them as human beings (because they are). You don't have to like them. You don't have to like what they do. But you don't get to attack them. You don't get to discriminate against them. And you don't get special privileges that you deny to them.
So, smoking in private is not the issue. Figure it out ok?
Grow the fuck up. At least for the sake of your kids.
The fact that he failed document the password properly is not a crime.
Neither is his unwillingness to hand that password over to someone explicitly disallowed by corporate policy.
Actually, the fact that he denied access to authorized users is a crime, specifically CA 502(c)(5). See this for more information:
Specifically, he denied computer service to an authorized user without permission. The specific act here was not providing access to the FiberWAN routers and switches upon the request of the city's COO. For the permission part, he did not have any permission from anyone to not provide that access. We looked through the evidence for anything that would indicate that he had permission to deny access to an authorized user, but there was no such evidence. There was evidence, however, that it was part of his job duties to provide that access to authorized users.
I don't know if 5 years is justified (note that he will probably be released shortly with time served), but there is little doubt that he broke the law, and even that he did so knowing exactly what he was doing.
Also see this article which interviews the Slashdot poster who happened to be on the jury.
You mean Slashdot posted an incorrect and sensationalist summary? Say it ain't so!
This is why I don't read Slashdot summaries. I read the title to see if the topic is something I might be vaguely interested in, then I read the comments to find out what the story is. If there aren't many comments, then I read the article.
Basically, the three sources of information are, in order from most to least useful: 1) comments*, 2) article, 3) summary.
* of course, most of the comments are less useful than even the summary, but the best information can always be found in there after some digging.
I dunno, for some games, I've found manuals to be pretty useful: Neverwinter Nights, Civilization, i.e. games with lots of miscellaneous icons and skill trees that require a decent amount of planning. Sure you can put the content in game, but sometimes it's nice to have a reference guide. Plus the art and flavor text is nice sometimes too.
But did you absolutely require that information printed on paper, or would a PDF or HTML file do the job?
Its lax practice. Where is my work laptop? On me, at home or safely in the trunk of my car. When you are entrusted with work property you don't freaking leave it behind.
Cars can get stolen. People can get mugged. Houses can get broken into. I don't wish any of those things on you, but if such a tragedy should occur, I also wouldn't wish you get fired for it as well.
He didn't just make a mistake. He left a prototype in a bar while out drinking. That's flat out incompetence and he should be fired for it. I have zero sympathy for the guy, this growing trend of business people and government officials leaving sensitive equipment and data behind is just pure incompetence and being lax.
It's a prototype of a new phone. It's not a list of undercover CIA operatives.
Okay, so it's not art because you can "win". That's fine if you're the player. What if you're watching someone else play a videogame? It's kind of like watching a movie, and you can't "win" at it. So, then is it art? And if not, then why is a movie art?
Some dumb teacher probably just left their admin password laying around on a post-it note, or hell even left some admin interface open unattended, and doesn't want to admit it. Therefor, "hacking"!
Actually, although TFA doesn't provide any details about how the "hack" occurred, they do differentiate between this and a similar case where someone merely obtained someone else's password. The implication of the article is that there was actual technical skill of some kind involved.
This is actually the exact opposite of both Gattaca and Minority Report. Those movies were based on the idea that predicted future behaviour cannot be changed, therefore opportunities should be taken away from the individual. This system is based on the idea that predicted possible future behaviour can be changed, thus providing opportunities to the individual.
For the most part, everyone gets put into the same system, but that system has different effects on different people. This is an attempt to tailor the rehabilitation to the individual's needs, rather than trying to cram a square peg into a round hole.
This is just data gathering to aid in decision making. Not only that, but this is already being done, and has been for a long time. This is just new technology to improve the effectiveness of the data.
There are different types of players with different skill sets. If you're Chris Ferguson, you play a mathematical game. If you're Scotty Nguyen, you play a psychological game. If you're me, you make lots of mistakes and hope to get lucky once in a while.:)
A skilled player doesn't need "good cards" to win.
Case in point: at the club that I used to play at, there was a player who showed up somewhat frequently who tended to clean up every table he sat at, even though he rarely even bothered to look to see what cards he had been dealt.
He was adept at quickly identifying the skill level of every player at the table, and playing to their weaknesses. Only if a skilled player was betting against him, or the betting started to get fierce enough that it became obvious that the cards were becoming a factor, would he actually check out his cards for the first time.
Not many people can play like that, and I don't know how well his style held up in the long run. But it's definitely true that skill obviates the need for good cards.
I mean, seriously, a game of skill is a game where if your skill is superior to your opponent's you win, period. In poker if the deck keeps spitting out cards that favor your opponent you can have all the skill in the world, and you will lose...
You're thinking short term. Skill pays off in the long run.
It's statistically impossible for the cards to always favour your opponent. Eventually, you will be dealt a better hand than your opponent's hand.
A simple way to look at it is this. In an infinite number of hands dealt randomly to two players, Player A will be dealt the better hand 50% of the time, and Player B will be dealt the better hand 50% of the time. If A is "perfectly" skilled and B is "perfectly" unskilled, then A will ensure that he wins the maximum amount of money on the hands that he wins, and loses the least amount of money on the hands that he loses. Additionally, when both players have "iffy" hands, A will play in such a way as to convince B that B's hand is inferior, even when it's not, so that B will fold and give the pot to A.
Over the long run, A will make more money, even though he isn't dealt more winning hands, and even though there will be periods of time when B is being dealt a sequence of winning hands.
Of course, this only really applies to cash play, as tournaments have a designated end, and therefore they are much more influenced by luck.
Considering that the biggest gripe of the WSP old-hands is that young players are ruining the game by relying too much on aggressive betting, I would like to argue that it is not nearly as much a game of skill as a lot of people think.
Tournament play is heavily influenced by luck. One bad beat and you're out. End of story.
Cash play, however, is a game of skill. A skilled player brushes off a bad beat, waits out the cold cards, and makes money in the long run. The overly aggressive risk-taker who just won a tournament will lose every penny of his winnings, and then some, if he chooses to sit down at a cash table and see how his playing style works for him in the long run.
The main reason they are pushing 3D so hard is it makes it harder pirating the movies.
So what if that's true?
If the studios want to combat piracy by actually trying to innovate and improve their product so people will choose it over the pirated version, then I say "it's about time". This is exactly what they should be doing.
The fact that we have to pay an extra 25% to see them just adds insult to injury.
You have a choice. There is always the 2D version available to watch if you don't want to spend the extra two dollars.
These are WEB apps, not downloadable ones (technically, the client gets downloaded into your browser cache, but that's usually the extent of it)
That is incorrect.
Please explain.
The summary says "web apps". The actual website, however, says "online and mobile apps". What they're actually rating are mostly downloadable applications, although some really are web apps.
Slashdot Mirror
Music is never truly "obsolete". Older artists/albums may be listened to less frequently than newer artists/albums, but there's nothing stopping someone today deciding that The Beatles is their new favourite band. Nobody stops listening to an artist simply because it's a new year and the new line of artists is coming out.
Fashion does become obsolete. Although old ideas get recycled in new trends, as soon as a trend passes and gets replaced by a new trend, that old trend is obsolete.
Look at it this way: a fashionable clothing store can sell new styles that are influenced by an old trend, but cannot simply sell old clothes. On the other hand, music stores can, and do, sell albums released decades ago.
The iPad is a limited device. It is not designed to replace the desktop. It is designed to be an extension of it.
I think you've pretty much got it right in your post, except the above quoted comment. I'd say that, for the reasons you explained, the iPad is intended to replace the desktop for many people.
Basically, there was a time when only nerds had computers. Then, as years went by, computers started to show up in the workplace, then spread to the home, and now they're everywhere, and everyone has them. And most people find them to be frustrating, annoying, incomprehensible machines.
Now, there is a movement away from general purpose computers and more toward special purpose devices. The iPad is one of these. What is likely going to happen is that most people— and by this I mean ordinary non-nerds— are going to realize that they don't need a general purpose computer. They have a handful of tasks that they need to accomplish, and there are/will be smaller, simpler, cheaper devices with which they can accomplish those tasks.
The nerds, meanwhile, still want/need computers, and we will still use them. Offices will likely continue to use them. But I don't think it's unreasonable to think that "ordinary" people will, more and more, as time goes by, get rid of their desktop computers at home.
That would be ASCAP. Almost as equally evil. They had a stultifying effect on country music for a long time, don't know about other genres.
ASCAP is a Performing Rights Organization. What you're looking for is a publisher, and often those fall under the same umbrella as the record label, so ultimately it comes back to the RIAA again.
There are a BUNCH of really interesting, truly nerdy stories in the firehouse...why does crap like this always find a way through?
Because kdawson works here.
If he's a contractor, then the contract must be explicit, but if he's an employee, it's automatically considered "work-for-hire", and therefore the employer is the legal "author" of the work.
It would be nice if Firefox did improve performance though. Would be a lot more significant than a trimmed down interface while the program runs just as slow.
They're working on that. Unlike the summary, the actual presentation gives information about more than just "slimming down the UI to make it seem faster". Their first of three stated goals is "making Firefox super-duper fast". If you look at the slides here, the "fast" discussion starts at slide 23.
How many parsecs is that? Er, wait ... [head asplode]
More important still, how many beard seconds is that?
Wow. You're a genuine cunt.
The university person gets fired because a lot of gay assholes insist on bringing this issue OUT of the bedroom and into my kids primary school with Heather Has Two Mommies, and visits by homosexuals and other sensitivity training.
They're not bringing gay sex out of the bedroom and into your kid's classroom. They're bringing reality there. Same sex partnerships exist. Accept it and move on.
Then a bunch of other gay assholes want to parade down my main street acting like total degenerates.
They have to watch straight people flaunt their sexuality in public for 364 days and 23 hours out of every year. For ONE STINKIN' HOUR out of the year, they ask to be able to flaunt their own. If that's too much to ask, then you truly are a selfish cunt.
Then another bunch of gay assholes who really aren't very good workers sued their employers claiming the reason they were fired was because they were gay, not that they sucked at doing actual work.
If that's truly the case, then hopefully the court will rule accordingly. Even if it's true as you described it, the fact that someone abuses the legitimate protection for people who might otherwise have been fired for non-work related reasons doesn't mean that such protections shouldn't exist. If all systems that got abused were dismantled, we'd have no systems whatsoever.
Then a huge bunch of gay assholes think that I MUST be legislated in liking them and their behavior.
Oh? Where do you find this legislation? In your ass? Wake the fuck up, all they ask for is that they not be oppressed, that they get all the rights and privileges that you have (and not a single one more, despite what right-wing fuckwads like to claim), and that you respect them as human beings (because they are). You don't have to like them. You don't have to like what they do. But you don't get to attack them. You don't get to discriminate against them. And you don't get special privileges that you deny to them.
So, smoking in private is not the issue. Figure it out ok?
Grow the fuck up. At least for the sake of your kids.
The fact that he failed document the password properly is not a crime.
Neither is his unwillingness to hand that password over to someone explicitly disallowed by corporate policy.
Actually, the fact that he denied access to authorized users is a crime, specifically CA 502(c)(5). See this for more information:
Specifically, he denied computer service to an authorized user without permission. The specific act here was not providing access to the FiberWAN routers and switches upon the request of the city's COO. For the permission part, he did not have any permission from anyone to not provide that access. We looked through the evidence for anything that would indicate that he had permission to deny access to an authorized user, but there was no such evidence. There was evidence, however, that it was part of his job duties to provide that access to authorized users.
I don't know if 5 years is justified (note that he will probably be released shortly with time served), but there is little doubt that he broke the law, and even that he did so knowing exactly what he was doing.
Also see this article which interviews the Slashdot poster who happened to be on the jury.
You mean Slashdot posted an incorrect and sensationalist summary? Say it ain't so!
This is why I don't read Slashdot summaries. I read the title to see if the topic is something I might be vaguely interested in, then I read the comments to find out what the story is. If there aren't many comments, then I read the article.
Basically, the three sources of information are, in order from most to least useful: 1) comments*, 2) article, 3) summary.
* of course, most of the comments are less useful than even the summary, but the best information can always be found in there after some digging.
Oops. Must've clicked "Post Anonymously" by mistake. The above post was by me.
I dunno, for some games, I've found manuals to be pretty useful: Neverwinter Nights, Civilization, i.e. games with lots of miscellaneous icons and skill trees that require a decent amount of planning. Sure you can put the content in game, but sometimes it's nice to have a reference guide. Plus the art and flavor text is nice sometimes too.
But did you absolutely require that information printed on paper, or would a PDF or HTML file do the job?
Its lax practice. Where is my work laptop? On me, at home or safely in the trunk of my car. When you are entrusted with work property you don't freaking leave it behind.
Cars can get stolen. People can get mugged. Houses can get broken into. I don't wish any of those things on you, but if such a tragedy should occur, I also wouldn't wish you get fired for it as well.
He didn't just make a mistake. He left a prototype in a bar while out drinking. That's flat out incompetence and he should be fired for it. I have zero sympathy for the guy, this growing trend of business people and government officials leaving sensitive equipment and data behind is just pure incompetence and being lax.
It's a prototype of a new phone. It's not a list of undercover CIA operatives.
Get some perspective.
Okay, so it's not art because you can "win". That's fine if you're the player. What if you're watching someone else play a videogame? It's kind of like watching a movie, and you can't "win" at it. So, then is it art? And if not, then why is a movie art?
Some dumb teacher probably just left their admin password laying around on a post-it note, or hell even left some admin interface open unattended, and doesn't want to admit it. Therefor, "hacking"!
Actually, although TFA doesn't provide any details about how the "hack" occurred, they do differentiate between this and a similar case where someone merely obtained someone else's password. The implication of the article is that there was actual technical skill of some kind involved.
This is actually the exact opposite of both Gattaca and Minority Report. Those movies were based on the idea that predicted future behaviour cannot be changed, therefore opportunities should be taken away from the individual. This system is based on the idea that predicted possible future behaviour can be changed, thus providing opportunities to the individual.
For the most part, everyone gets put into the same system, but that system has different effects on different people. This is an attempt to tailor the rehabilitation to the individual's needs, rather than trying to cram a square peg into a round hole.
This is just data gathering to aid in decision making. Not only that, but this is already being done, and has been for a long time. This is just new technology to improve the effectiveness of the data.
Or maybe their skillset has changed.
There are different types of players with different skill sets. If you're Chris Ferguson, you play a mathematical game. If you're Scotty Nguyen, you play a psychological game. If you're me, you make lots of mistakes and hope to get lucky once in a while. :)
A skilled player doesn't need "good cards" to win.
Case in point: at the club that I used to play at, there was a player who showed up somewhat frequently who tended to clean up every table he sat at, even though he rarely even bothered to look to see what cards he had been dealt.
He was adept at quickly identifying the skill level of every player at the table, and playing to their weaknesses. Only if a skilled player was betting against him, or the betting started to get fierce enough that it became obvious that the cards were becoming a factor, would he actually check out his cards for the first time.
Not many people can play like that, and I don't know how well his style held up in the long run. But it's definitely true that skill obviates the need for good cards.
I mean, seriously, a game of skill is a game where if your skill is superior to your opponent's you win, period. In poker if the deck keeps spitting out cards that favor your opponent you can have all the skill in the world, and you will lose...
You're thinking short term. Skill pays off in the long run.
It's statistically impossible for the cards to always favour your opponent. Eventually, you will be dealt a better hand than your opponent's hand.
A simple way to look at it is this. In an infinite number of hands dealt randomly to two players, Player A will be dealt the better hand 50% of the time, and Player B will be dealt the better hand 50% of the time. If A is "perfectly" skilled and B is "perfectly" unskilled, then A will ensure that he wins the maximum amount of money on the hands that he wins, and loses the least amount of money on the hands that he loses. Additionally, when both players have "iffy" hands, A will play in such a way as to convince B that B's hand is inferior, even when it's not, so that B will fold and give the pot to A.
Over the long run, A will make more money, even though he isn't dealt more winning hands, and even though there will be periods of time when B is being dealt a sequence of winning hands.
Of course, this only really applies to cash play, as tournaments have a designated end, and therefore they are much more influenced by luck.
Considering that the biggest gripe of the WSP old-hands is that young players are ruining the game by relying too much on aggressive betting, I would like to argue that it is not nearly as much a game of skill as a lot of people think.
Tournament play is heavily influenced by luck. One bad beat and you're out. End of story.
Cash play, however, is a game of skill. A skilled player brushes off a bad beat, waits out the cold cards, and makes money in the long run. The overly aggressive risk-taker who just won a tournament will lose every penny of his winnings, and then some, if he chooses to sit down at a cash table and see how his playing style works for him in the long run.
The main reason they are pushing 3D so hard is it makes it harder pirating the movies.
So what if that's true?
If the studios want to combat piracy by actually trying to innovate and improve their product so people will choose it over the pirated version, then I say "it's about time". This is exactly what they should be doing.
The fact that we have to pay an extra 25% to see them just adds insult to injury.
You have a choice. There is always the 2D version available to watch if you don't want to spend the extra two dollars.
These are WEB apps, not downloadable ones (technically, the client gets downloaded into your browser cache, but that's usually the extent of it)
That is incorrect.
Please explain.
The summary says "web apps". The actual website, however, says "online and mobile apps". What they're actually rating are mostly downloadable applications, although some really are web apps.
I would so buy that.
So tell them. If enough people want it, they'll make it.
So, can someone explain the hover comment in that one?
Yes, someone can.