This just means that it is the same *level* playing field that the rest of us enjoy. ie: Why does one guy get to be a programmer at Google and the other guy works at some no name company doing IT work? Why does one graphic designer get a job at a big agency doing work for Nike and the next works at a print shop laying out business cards for a bunch of no name companies?
It's exactly the same as what you described for musicians... right place, right time mixed with the skills/education and passion to do the job. OTOH there are people who say that you make your own luck by putting yourself in the right position at the right time to meet people, etc. which is also partly true - it's the reason why people who want to get into Hollywood "go to Hollywood".
Sometimes you have to keep trying and trying until someone notices. There are a lot of very successful people who spent the first 10 years and longer of their adult life waiting to get noticed.
I'd like to see what happens when some business minded individual (such as Trent) decides to create a corporation and offer it up for an IPO to the public.
Basically the idea is to fund the production of each album using other people's money and then of course investors get to share it the proceeds.
The labels do this, why not the artists? Certainly there is a lot of legal overhead and a new set of laws and fiduciary duties to the shareholders, etc etc but that's a real business for you....
Each band will of course need to market themselves as they see fit and in line with what sort of audience they think they can get. Amazing artists won't have to try too hard (just hard enough to build a decent grassroots following) as their music will speak for itself... OTOH artists that are just another music group or yet another boy band (YABB) are going to find it difficult to stand out from the crowd and may end up needing to sign with a promotions company (a music label or touring company - the new label these days).
Amazing artists will still need to do the leg work that has been traditionally necessary to get the word out, ie: touring a lot, playing small venues, giving away the first album, etc. and will probably have to work day jobs in the beginning. BUT if they can hold off on becoming celebrities for a year or two and just work their butts off to get out there, they WILL find success and lots of money.
Say you've got a male frog. This frog sucks at swimming cause he's got short weak legs with no webbing between the toes. All the females around notice that he sucks at swimming and decide not to mate with him because they don't want their offspring to suck at swimming. instead they go for the frog that is great at swimming. So frog (b) who is great at swimming has longer, stronger legs... with some webbing between the toes. All his offspring inherit these traits. One of his offspring has even better webbing due to a a small mutation in his genes that makes the webbing start farther out on his toes.
This new offspring has even better luck with the ladies... 50% of his offspring inherit the new better webbing gene 50% don't. the ones who inherited it have great luck with the ladies, the other 505 can't compete as well and lose out. SO all the best competitors have more children and they ALL inherit the better webbing gene.
Eventually there is almost no individuals left in the frog population but the best competitors who have the good webbing gene which lets them swim faster and more efficiently, getting more food, escaping more predators and therefore having more children. There are still a few frogs each generation who have the old minor webbing gene but they never do very well and don't have many children and often are killed early or just can't compete for food and die. Eventually after many many generations there are no frogs born with the old gene.
Voila evolution & natural selection... much simplified.
Additionally you can use option+left/right arrow to jump to beginning/end of words and option+shift+left/right to highlight words... while apple/command + shift +arrows will highlight the rest of the sentence to the left or right of your current insertion point.
I'd say that's enough *real* features whatever that means...
BD isn't a *standard* the way you describe it. Just as CDs are not a *standard*. They are simply a defacto media format for distributing commercial data. Anyone can use them or not for distributing data but there are plenty of alternatives.
Until there is a societal need to have 30GB of data sent out to everyone in a nation or state... on a physical disk media, there simply is no need for a *standard* such as this. It's purely convenience and entertainment. Yes there is a lot of money to be made but no one's life or standard of living is at stake.
Mobile devices don't really need to connect to IPv4 addresses and the number of mobile specific services out there is pretty limited and can more easily be switched over to run on IPv6 servers. Seems like a fairly targeted resolution to me.
So no interpretative license... still depends on whether it was meant to be taken literally or as allegory, which is the standard response. BTW I'm a converted Catholic... not atheist by any measure. I still am more Academic about reading the Bible... to me it's is more like a self-help guide to living - not a textbook of facts.
Especially as when God created the Universe there was no one to witness the rotation of the earth around it's axis bringing "evening" and "morning". Why would an omniscient being describe an event which only occurs when one is standing stationary on a rotating planet orbiting a star? Even then the period of time of a day is relative to which planet, which star and at what point in it's life... sorry but all evidence points to the conclusion that the description was meant to illustrate a concept, not define it.
Which version of the bible? The Hebrew? King James? interpretation of the original text/story could be that "There was an ending and a beginning, the Nth *day*"
I'm listening. I just have a different view of how trade works. Maybe I'm too much pragmatist here.
I still say that trade without debt is impossible on a global scale. There are not enough stockpiles of collateral assets in the world to back all the trade which occurs... the collateral is being traded or being manufactured or is sitting in the ground waiting to be extracted.
What you're saying is that we should not count that stuff as collateral, especially the futures market. So companies should not be able to have a valuation on the open markets greater than their current assets and current capacity....
The whole thing really is a house of cards when you look at it this way BUT it is one which allows for fluid economics that allow resources to go to areas of investment that could never be explored or developed any other way.
If companies could not borrow money/debt from individuals who have promisory notes from their employers, based on their ability to support that employers progress/revenue, which the first company will use to research and develop or increase capacity to produce goods and services... well it's a long road of investment and loans and risky transactions any way you look at it. Most companies attempt to keep the risk low but some go for it and lose it all as well.
Debt BTW is not created out of thin air... it is backed by something but that something may not be readily apparent. For instance when you get a home loan it is backed by the collateral of the home but it is also backed by your ability to pay (future revenue) AND it is backed by the fact that the Loan Originator (usually the bank) can and will sell the loan off to a 3rd party as a security against another loan which may be a business loan or other type of investment which has less risky terms which will offset any loss on the home loan so that the average total gain to the bank is positive given a large enough set of loan pairs/triads. The situation you see today with the sub-prime fallout is actually a result of this arrangement to a large degree... TOO many loans went bad in too short a period of time and the whole thing fell through... the home loans AND the business loans, re-investments etc. This was a case of people pushing the system too far to fast... it can only absorb so many offsets at any given time.
Sounds like playing with fire? It is... but that's how things get done. No risk no gain. Take out the option to gamble with other people's money and the progress you see out there, new businesses, new products... new jobs... it all goes away and we end up with a stagnant economy (which you may prefer to a recession but it's really just as bad)
Maybe what you should argue for instead is to stop Foreign Banks from buying up US debt and taking all that value overseas.
In this scenario the debt circulates and all the money changes hands with some people winning and some losing the bet but overall it get redistributed within the population one way or another, ie: US winners reinvest in US companies instead of Foreign winners reinvesting in foreign companies. This would slow things down quite a bit but the economy would not stagnate it would simply be a little smaller, like a smallish city instead of a big city... less traffic but a lot more stability.
Personally I think there should be a hybrid policy put in place... one where there is a quota/budget for foreign investment (buying up of debt). This would limit our exposure to the downside but would allow for the economy to grow at a reasonable pace ie: make the quota/budget a percentage of GDP so that it's always at a healthy balance.
The mechanism for this would be for the US Treasury to regulate Foreign investment via US Bonds (which we already use for this) and not allow Foreign banks or individuals to directly invest in US companies or securities. Another would be to have a special US foreign investment market also regulated so that there could be a more free exchange but where the total market value of foreign inves
You need to go back to school and retake your basic economic theory classes.
What I said was that all currency is based off of debt. That's what it is.... currency == debt
You can not have an economy above a basic local barter system without currency, therefore debt as a financial vehicle ie: currency is essential.
You are talking about something else entirely. Yes when an individual BORROWS more debt than they can account for with their own accrued debt notes ie: from their employer, and their amount of debt is completely unbalanced to the point where they will never be able to work it off before the interest on that debt becomes larger than the value of the debt itself (being upside down in a loan for instance)... that person is in trouble.
I agree with you on that point. BUT this doesn't really apply to governments. The dollar is either strong as a debt vehicle or it is weak. The US can either buy lots of stuff from other countries or not. It is self-correcting. If the US borrows debt from China for instance, with an interest rate... that weakens the dollar and therefore the US can not buy as much stuff from abroad until that debt is paid off. If the interest is so high that it is no longer possible to pay it back given the GDP of the country, then China is screwed.
They should have made a more thoughtful investment... realizing that the US was over-extended and would not be able to pay them back at the rate they requested. OTOH it's likely that no other country would be able to borrow the debt as well as the US had and so China will probably not care that much as they were able to get the most profit from loaning their resources as was possible. unfortunately this means those resources are tied up indefinitely... or they have lost them... which might be a bad thing, depending on the type of resource (renewable or non-renewable) that the US applied their borrowed debt to.
In any case your analogy of an individual does not apply to governments. There are so many additional factors at play.
There is nothing wrong with debt. This is a misunderstanding by many many people. Debt IS money. Debt is what ALL CURRENCY is based on. Something like a gold standard where currency is backed by a rare element is a fallacy. Gold has no value as a currency and is only valuable as a conductor and as a shiny thing(TM)
Back to debt... here's the example.
You want me to do some work for you... I want to get paid for it and you agree to pay me. You could pay me with something you already have (bread, wood, gold, whatever) and if I agree to the payment we're done... nice doing business. OR you could offer me the option of an IOU letter which promises payment in the future (since you have a crop coming in but haven't harvested it yet or maybe you can pay me back with your labor but you're busy right now and so am I)... and If I agree to accept that as payment.. You are in my debt.
I now have a note with your signature that promises X units of work or product, whatever which is payment for the work I did previously. Now if you have a good reputation for making good on your promises... well maybe I could trade your promissory note for someone else's goods or services... VOILA currency is invented AND it is backed by debt!!!! Imagine that.
Now multiply this situation by a few trillion transactions times the number of years we've had such a system... say 2008 just for fun (not that Anno Domini is the best measure for this).... that's a lot of debt exchange going on. IT's a good thing someone standardized the system and created an institution for printing up trusted promissory notes and established lending houses (banks) and exchanges (NYSE) etc, otherwise it would be difficult for the system to be fluid enough to handle all these transactions of DEBT.
The GLOBAL economy is based on debt. Your job depends on it. There wouldn't be anyone with collateral enough to buy the stuff you make if not for debt exchange via currency.
This is why it always confuses me when people say we should balance the national budget. We don't want a balanced budget we want a strategically invested budget. If your budget is balanced it means you're not investing in anything... your debt isn't doing any good for you. Look at Donald Trump... that guy knows how to use debt. He borrows as much as he needs (without using any of his own resources) and puts it to work on something more valuable in the end.... then he sells it and keeps the difference. THAT is what the federal gov needs to be doing with out money... ie: investing it in huge public utilities in big developing nations which have the resources to buy it back from us over time with a net profit on our side.... THAT is what China does with their money/debt (actually a lot of it is our money/debt).
Anyways... DEBT is great, DEBT is good. Long live DEBT.
Hmmm that may be going too far. Emminent domain is a slippery slope... Public Domain could work out but still could be used as punishment or as a threat to companies or individuals who are disliked by the current administration (at any time, not just *this* current administration).
It would need to be an Act of Congress followed up with Presidential Veto option and finally a Supreme Court decision that would ratify or overturn.
Why should someone who holds the patent get a percentage of revenue not generated by the patent? Even if they win the suit on the point of ownership, etc. There is no legal reason for broadcasters to pay a percentage of revenue they generate from the combination of all the technologies and content they use.
At most they should get a percentage of sales of the devices that use the patent directly.... not Ad revenue or other licensing revenue for syndicated shows, DVDs, etc.
What actual devices implement this patented technology?
I've found the best protection is software that tells you when other software is trying to dial home or send out anything.... on my Mac I use Little Snitch, on PCs I believe the best is Zone Alarm.
It doesn't rely on virus definitions or anything else. It only requires that you take a minute to think about whether the software which wants to connect is doing so at your request or has gone renegade. Now of course once you find that you've got something trying to get out you need to clean it, which is where an anti-virus app comes into play. You run it and if it does the job you're good to go.. if not, at least you know there is something wrong and can:
a) use a Deep Freeze type strategy to rollback to a known good version of your system b) hunt it down or let a pro hunt it down for you or c) reinstall or reimage
This also avoids the worst aspect of AV software.... the fact that it bogs your system down making it much less useful in general.
And use it the way god intended... to power our interstellar space-flight... not our inter-city transit.
See lots of posts about costing too much to bring it back, so maybe just maybe we develop the resource where it is and put a station in orbit around it which can be a nice little waystation on our way to other places.
Sounds like a great place to put a big station. Surely we can figure out a way to crack the hydrocarbons into water as well... just need a source of oxygen, which we have to bring or find anyways, no matter where we go. Next up, finding a big oxygen crystal in space that we can tow into orbit around Titan.
I personally prefer the progressive enhancement methodology... but it's not always possible.
When there is an accessible, etc. alternative to what you can do with Flash... we'll all switch over. Until then it is still the most rich media experience you can author for the browser. ie when you can mix video, audio and dynamic content in a composited output via some other method, well let me know when you've found it.
Again, Flash is a tool... it's not always the best tool but sometimes it is...
Slashdot Mirror
This just means that it is the same *level* playing field that the rest of us enjoy. ie: Why does one guy get to be a programmer at Google and the other guy works at some no name company doing IT work? Why does one graphic designer get a job at a big agency doing work for Nike and the next works at a print shop laying out business cards for a bunch of no name companies?
It's exactly the same as what you described for musicians... right place, right time mixed with the skills/education and passion to do the job. OTOH there are people who say that you make your own luck by putting yourself in the right position at the right time to meet people, etc. which is also partly true - it's the reason why people who want to get into Hollywood "go to Hollywood".
Sometimes you have to keep trying and trying until someone notices. There are a lot of very successful people who spent the first 10 years and longer of their adult life waiting to get noticed.
And I'm quite certain that they get a good night's sleep almost every night - though IANAPG (prison guard) so i could be wrong.
In any case that 1 in 10, does it include incarcerated people? If so then really the numbers should be different (???)
I'd like to see what happens when some business minded individual (such as Trent) decides to create a corporation and offer it up for an IPO to the public.
Basically the idea is to fund the production of each album using other people's money and then of course investors get to share it the proceeds.
The labels do this, why not the artists? Certainly there is a lot of legal overhead and a new set of laws and fiduciary duties to the shareholders, etc etc but that's a real business for you....
This is true and not true.
Each band will of course need to market themselves as they see fit and in line with what sort of audience they think they can get. Amazing artists won't have to try too hard (just hard enough to build a decent grassroots following) as their music will speak for itself... OTOH artists that are just another music group or yet another boy band (YABB) are going to find it difficult to stand out from the crowd and may end up needing to sign with a promotions company (a music label or touring company - the new label these days).
Amazing artists will still need to do the leg work that has been traditionally necessary to get the word out, ie: touring a lot, playing small venues, giving away the first album, etc. and will probably have to work day jobs in the beginning. BUT if they can hold off on becoming celebrities for a year or two and just work their butts off to get out there, they WILL find success and lots of money.
Now my version.
Say you've got a male frog. This frog sucks at swimming cause he's got short weak legs with no webbing between the toes. All the females around notice that he sucks at swimming and decide not to mate with him because they don't want their offspring to suck at swimming. instead they go for the frog that is great at swimming. So frog (b) who is great at swimming has longer, stronger legs... with some webbing between the toes. All his offspring inherit these traits. One of his offspring has even better webbing due to a a small mutation in his genes that makes the webbing start farther out on his toes.
This new offspring has even better luck with the ladies... 50% of his offspring inherit the new better webbing gene 50% don't. the ones who inherited it have great luck with the ladies, the other 505 can't compete as well and lose out. SO all the best competitors have more children and they ALL inherit the better webbing gene.
Eventually there is almost no individuals left in the frog population but the best competitors who have the good webbing gene which lets them swim faster and more efficiently, getting more food, escaping more predators and therefore having more children. There are still a few frogs each generation who have the old minor webbing gene but they never do very well and don't have many children and often are killed early or just can't compete for food and die. Eventually after many many generations there are no frogs born with the old gene.
Voila evolution & natural selection... much simplified.
Sure why not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
Additionally you can use option+left/right arrow to jump to beginning/end of words and option+shift+left/right to highlight words... while apple/command + shift +arrows will highlight the rest of the sentence to the left or right of your current insertion point.
I'd say that's enough *real* features whatever that means...
BD isn't a *standard* the way you describe it. Just as CDs are not a *standard*. They are simply a defacto media format for distributing commercial data. Anyone can use them or not for distributing data but there are plenty of alternatives.
Until there is a societal need to have 30GB of data sent out to everyone in a nation or state... on a physical disk media, there simply is no need for a *standard* such as this. It's purely convenience and entertainment. Yes there is a lot of money to be made but no one's life or standard of living is at stake.
Just to be consistent with it's user base demographics...
Mobile devices don't really need to connect to IPv4 addresses and the number of mobile specific services out there is pretty limited and can more easily be switched over to run on IPv6 servers. Seems like a fairly targeted resolution to me.
actually it should be:
a) document.write("I knew there had to be a MATLAB joke in there somewhere
");
b) window.document.body.append("I knew there had to be a MATLAB joke in there somewhere
");
c) console.log("I knew there had to be a MATLAB joke in there somewhere
");
with (b) being the best corollary... an alert() is by far the worst option
So no interpretative license... still depends on whether it was meant to be taken literally or as allegory, which is the standard response. BTW I'm a converted Catholic... not atheist by any measure. I still am more Academic about reading the Bible... to me it's is more like a self-help guide to living - not a textbook of facts.
Especially as when God created the Universe there was no one to witness the rotation of the earth around it's axis bringing "evening" and "morning". Why would an omniscient being describe an event which only occurs when one is standing stationary on a rotating planet orbiting a star? Even then the period of time of a day is relative to which planet, which star and at what point in it's life... sorry but all evidence points to the conclusion that the description was meant to illustrate a concept, not define it.
Which version of the bible? The Hebrew? King James? interpretation of the original text/story could be that "There was an ending and a beginning, the Nth *day*"
I'm listening. I just have a different view of how trade works. Maybe I'm too much pragmatist here.
I still say that trade without debt is impossible on a global scale. There are not enough stockpiles of collateral assets in the world to back all the trade which occurs... the collateral is being traded or being manufactured or is sitting in the ground waiting to be extracted.
What you're saying is that we should not count that stuff as collateral, especially the futures market. So companies should not be able to have a valuation on the open markets greater than their current assets and current capacity....
The whole thing really is a house of cards when you look at it this way BUT it is one which allows for fluid economics that allow resources to go to areas of investment that could never be explored or developed any other way.
If companies could not borrow money/debt from individuals who have promisory notes from their employers, based on their ability to support that employers progress/revenue, which the first company will use to research and develop or increase capacity to produce goods and services... well it's a long road of investment and loans and risky transactions any way you look at it. Most companies attempt to keep the risk low but some go for it and lose it all as well.
Debt BTW is not created out of thin air... it is backed by something but that something may not be readily apparent. For instance when you get a home loan it is backed by the collateral of the home but it is also backed by your ability to pay (future revenue) AND it is backed by the fact that the Loan Originator (usually the bank) can and will sell the loan off to a 3rd party as a security against another loan which may be a business loan or other type of investment which has less risky terms which will offset any loss on the home loan so that the average total gain to the bank is positive given a large enough set of loan pairs/triads. The situation you see today with the sub-prime fallout is actually a result of this arrangement to a large degree... TOO many loans went bad in too short a period of time and the whole thing fell through... the home loans AND the business loans, re-investments etc. This was a case of people pushing the system too far to fast... it can only absorb so many offsets at any given time.
Sounds like playing with fire? It is... but that's how things get done. No risk no gain. Take out the option to gamble with other people's money and the progress you see out there, new businesses, new products... new jobs... it all goes away and we end up with a stagnant economy (which you may prefer to a recession but it's really just as bad)
Maybe what you should argue for instead is to stop Foreign Banks from buying up US debt and taking all that value overseas.
In this scenario the debt circulates and all the money changes hands with some people winning and some losing the bet but overall it get redistributed within the population one way or another, ie: US winners reinvest in US companies instead of Foreign winners reinvesting in foreign companies. This would slow things down quite a bit but the economy would not stagnate it would simply be a little smaller, like a smallish city instead of a big city... less traffic but a lot more stability.
Personally I think there should be a hybrid policy put in place... one where there is a quota/budget for foreign investment (buying up of debt). This would limit our exposure to the downside but would allow for the economy to grow at a reasonable pace ie: make the quota/budget a percentage of GDP so that it's always at a healthy balance.
The mechanism for this would be for the US Treasury to regulate Foreign investment via US Bonds (which we already use for this) and not allow Foreign banks or individuals to directly invest in US companies or securities. Another would be to have a special US foreign investment market also regulated so that there could be a more free exchange but where the total market value of foreign inves
You need to go back to school and retake your basic economic theory classes.
What I said was that all currency is based off of debt. That's what it is.... currency == debt
You can not have an economy above a basic local barter system without currency, therefore debt as a financial vehicle ie: currency is essential.
You are talking about something else entirely. Yes when an individual BORROWS more debt than they can account for with their own accrued debt notes ie: from their employer, and their amount of debt is completely unbalanced to the point where they will never be able to work it off before the interest on that debt becomes larger than the value of the debt itself (being upside down in a loan for instance)... that person is in trouble.
I agree with you on that point. BUT this doesn't really apply to governments. The dollar is either strong as a debt vehicle or it is weak. The US can either buy lots of stuff from other countries or not. It is self-correcting. If the US borrows debt from China for instance, with an interest rate... that weakens the dollar and therefore the US can not buy as much stuff from abroad until that debt is paid off. If the interest is so high that it is no longer possible to pay it back given the GDP of the country, then China is screwed.
They should have made a more thoughtful investment... realizing that the US was over-extended and would not be able to pay them back at the rate they requested. OTOH it's likely that no other country would be able to borrow the debt as well as the US had and so China will probably not care that much as they were able to get the most profit from loaning their resources as was possible. unfortunately this means those resources are tied up indefinitely... or they have lost them... which might be a bad thing, depending on the type of resource (renewable or non-renewable) that the US applied their borrowed debt to.
In any case your analogy of an individual does not apply to governments. There are so many additional factors at play.
There is nothing wrong with debt. This is a misunderstanding by many many people. Debt IS money. Debt is what ALL CURRENCY is based on. Something like a gold standard where currency is backed by a rare element is a fallacy. Gold has no value as a currency and is only valuable as a conductor and as a shiny thing(TM)
Back to debt... here's the example.
You want me to do some work for you... I want to get paid for it and you agree to pay me. You could pay me with something you already have (bread, wood, gold, whatever) and if I agree to the payment we're done... nice doing business. OR you could offer me the option of an IOU letter which promises payment in the future (since you have a crop coming in but haven't harvested it yet or maybe you can pay me back with your labor but you're busy right now and so am I)... and If I agree to accept that as payment.. You are in my debt.
I now have a note with your signature that promises X units of work or product, whatever which is payment for the work I did previously. Now if you have a good reputation for making good on your promises... well maybe I could trade your promissory note for someone else's goods or services... VOILA currency is invented AND it is backed by debt!!!! Imagine that.
Now multiply this situation by a few trillion transactions times the number of years we've had such a system... say 2008 just for fun (not that Anno Domini is the best measure for this).... that's a lot of debt exchange going on. IT's a good thing someone standardized the system and created an institution for printing up trusted promissory notes and established lending houses (banks) and exchanges (NYSE) etc, otherwise it would be difficult for the system to be fluid enough to handle all these transactions of DEBT.
The GLOBAL economy is based on debt. Your job depends on it. There wouldn't be anyone with collateral enough to buy the stuff you make if not for debt exchange via currency.
This is why it always confuses me when people say we should balance the national budget. We don't want a balanced budget we want a strategically invested budget. If your budget is balanced it means you're not investing in anything... your debt isn't doing any good for you. Look at Donald Trump... that guy knows how to use debt. He borrows as much as he needs (without using any of his own resources) and puts it to work on something more valuable in the end.... then he sells it and keeps the difference. THAT is what the federal gov needs to be doing with out money... ie: investing it in huge public utilities in big developing nations which have the resources to buy it back from us over time with a net profit on our side.... THAT is what China does with their money/debt (actually a lot of it is our money/debt).
Anyways... DEBT is great, DEBT is good. Long live DEBT.
Hmmm that may be going too far. Emminent domain is a slippery slope... Public Domain could work out but still could be used as punishment or as a threat to companies or individuals who are disliked by the current administration (at any time, not just *this* current administration).
It would need to be an Act of Congress followed up with Presidential Veto option and finally a Supreme Court decision that would ratify or overturn.
Why should someone who holds the patent get a percentage of revenue not generated by the patent? Even if they win the suit on the point of ownership, etc. There is no legal reason for broadcasters to pay a percentage of revenue they generate from the combination of all the technologies and content they use.
At most they should get a percentage of sales of the devices that use the patent directly.... not Ad revenue or other licensing revenue for syndicated shows, DVDs, etc.
What actual devices implement this patented technology?
I've found the best protection is software that tells you when other software is trying to dial home or send out anything.... on my Mac I use Little Snitch, on PCs I believe the best is Zone Alarm.
It doesn't rely on virus definitions or anything else. It only requires that you take a minute to think about whether the software which wants to connect is doing so at your request or has gone renegade. Now of course once you find that you've got something trying to get out you need to clean it, which is where an anti-virus app comes into play. You run it and if it does the job you're good to go.. if not, at least you know there is something wrong and can:
a) use a Deep Freeze type strategy to rollback to a known good version of your system
b) hunt it down or let a pro hunt it down for you or
c) reinstall or reimage
This also avoids the worst aspect of AV software.... the fact that it bogs your system down making it much less useful in general.
More like the ignored Routerians... just let me tell the facts... no spin please.
And use it the way god intended... to power our interstellar space-flight... not our inter-city transit.
See lots of posts about costing too much to bring it back, so maybe just maybe we develop the resource where it is and put a station in orbit around it which can be a nice little waystation on our way to other places.
Sounds like a great place to put a big station. Surely we can figure out a way to crack the hydrocarbons into water as well... just need a source of oxygen, which we have to bring or find anyways, no matter where we go. Next up, finding a big oxygen crystal in space that we can tow into orbit around Titan.
Uh... it has more marketshare that all Windows Mobile devices combined from all vendors *right now*
The only device that beats it in it's category is the Blackberry line... just fYI
Sorry to be so argumentative...
FYI the 99% figure is an actual install base (though from Adobe's stats page, not independent). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Flash#Market_share
I personally prefer the progressive enhancement methodology... but it's not always possible.
When there is an accessible, etc. alternative to what you can do with Flash... we'll all switch over. Until then it is still the most rich media experience you can author for the browser. ie when you can mix video, audio and dynamic content in a composited output via some other method, well let me know when you've found it.
Again, Flash is a tool... it's not always the best tool but sometimes it is...
Actually it is called Unlimitanium, a close cousin to Unobtainium
Both theorized to exist in their natural form as key elements that make up the legendary Money Tree.
http://programmermeetdesigner.com/
It's perfect for you....