Nothing, except getting the browser makers to distribute it for you, especially Microsoft, at the expense of the technology(ActiveX) they developed to do just that, plus increase their stranglehold on desktops.
You're confusing technology and science anyways. Advances in how you use a cellphone aren't advances in the science of the cellphone. Although touch interfaces are new enough to be new technology based on "newer" science. New science in cellphones really means "non-radio waves" cellphones, which haven't happened yet.
No wonder sci-fi is dying, so few people, even on slashdot, even know what it's about, and it has to fight off space opera/space fantasy to boot.
They don't... On the other hand, what you do alive isn't likely to grow in value. With artists, being dead increases the value, since there is scarcity. It's part and parcel of "art". On the other hand, valuing artists by their lifespan would be pretty dumb and counterproductive.
I don't see how this is bad either. As for publishers... If they really feared this, they could always have offered longer contracts to artists... a 55 year contract? YUP!
Oh wait you mean they wouldn't have made so much money off the artists? What? You mean giving more money to artists back in the napster days was only ok... if it wasn't your money?
Hopefully, in ten years, the RIAA member companies will exit the music business, or be bankrupt. If you work for them, please find other work now. I'm so against them getting a bailout then.
As you pointed out, COD4 was "Modern Warfare I". So in a sense, it's the same team, doing a similar thing, gripping teaser violence that leaves you bewildered by the possibilities it represents, and wondering what else they have up their sleeve, if nothing else. Great marketing. That's just what this is.
Anything will prove "The tragedy of the commons" as it doesn't really need proof at this point. However, expanding the commons is like that. The alternative is a shrinking commons, or actually having enough accountability and imputability that it's not really "the commons" anymore, but some form of public property under private ownership or management. I for one welcome expanding commons.
As for cell bandwidth, the process is so political, it's not really surprising they refuse or fight less for frequencies that are better, and duke it out with google for poorer frequencies. It lets the management say it's all someone else's fault.
At this point, I think we've established we can't rule out it's deliberate hardheadedness on their part to make it as hard as possible to run a machine without IE. It just may be that they are afraid to have to explain just how tied in their apis and such are to that browser(more likely its bugs) or not. But IE's been hard to remove since windows 95... windows 2000 was for most intents and purposes a rearchitecture, and because nobody put a gun to their head to make it run without ie, it would not run without ie(without the aforementioned loops). Now windows 7 is here, and it will not run without IE. Not because Microsoft can't. Because it doesn't want it to. The ballot screen, AFAIC, is a way to give the europeran commission what it says it wants, without giving them that.
How hard Microsoft is refusing to just make people download IE should give us a clue.
The ballot screen has to go. The only fair option to everyone is Microsoft with no browser(except a command line/dll, at this rate, windows help probably can't run without it anyways, and making windows run without help would actually hurt some users, but not Microsoft). Just no user interface AT ALL capable of browsing the web. Make people get one, possibly using that dll, or have all the program installers preloaded, and delete all the ones the user doesn't want.
But an ie-free machine shouldn't require prayer or special disks. Unchecking a checkbox hidden behind ONE(that is a maximum) layer of "advanced setup" is plenty enough.
You're right, and that's not even counting the fact that human actors might alter the prediction. That industry boards have put stopgaps and an alternate standard ready for deployment in place, and that the monetary value of some of what's "scarce" now might affect it's supply.
Oddly enough, I wonder if the movies about "Computers" (say hackers, sneakers, etc...) have anything to do with the sliding perceptions. Now we get movies that are into technology like cloning, etc...
The technology just wasn't there in the 1980s... remember the internet had barely happened yet.
I thought "good enough" was the inevitable landing spot of technology ever since the betamax. Corporations won't go for that much better than consumers do(the consumers pay up anyways), and the inefficiencies in publically funded anything are just frightful. So I posit that technology that will be "good enough" will always win, unless the consumers start asking for "better than good enough" consistently. So far they haven't.
He's not groveling at amazon or at the consumers. He's refusing to cooperate, so your point is?
IMO, Amazon, there is just one answer to that: these are my consumers, News.com is the next SCO, prepare to die!
(This is IMO remember) The only way I'm buying a kindle is if the device seller acts as a guardian of the consumer, from the content providers. The content providers have much too often been monopolists lacking only a monopoly.
Well boy did I not expect this kind of reaction... I'm kinda on your side, really. I meant, here's someone that's saying that SSDs means you're no longer starving for spindles... And I say "well that's good, they were holding us back, we can do something better now, that's not a problem." On the other hand, it seems it's a lot more loaded politically in places that don't do this with just three admins, and no dedicated storage admins, so I'll just shut up now cuz I hate politics. You guys have a nice day.
Storage has been the performance bottleneck for so long, it's a happy problem if you actually must increase the bus speeds/cpu processors/get faster memory on raid cards to keep up. Seems to me the article(or at least the summary) was written by someone hadn't been following enterprise storage for very long...
Re:Postal addresses identify houses!I
on
P.I.I. In the Sky
·
· Score: 1
No, it means we didn't want the Judge to say "there's no restriction on your use of this information, since it doesn't identify a person". Saying "This doesn't identify a person, by itself, so it's ok" would have worked. Saying "It identifies a computer, which could identify a person, so you can't have it" was the result the Judge didn't want to get.
As for the cameras, don't hold your breath, it's an attempt to use technology to stop a social problem, so it can only fail, but it will never be removed willingly by the state(because technology is either good, or bad, and if could be bad, you likely wouldn't be allowed in here).
I was thinking "well what happens if your indep carrier gets bought my a major" but it seems I was thinking too hard.
Can regulators get the really simple idea that "if the customer is restricted in changing, it's exclusive, and bad", or do we have to write it on their dead bodies first?
He's not confusing operating system and distribution. The D in BSD is for "Distribution", they practically invented the term.
It's a new idea, though, to have a distribution that wasn't responsible for the kernel. And several terms, like platform, and operating system, were inveted to differentiate from distribution as a result. IMHO, companies(corporate clients) do not confuse platform, operating system, or distribution, they can only evaluate(assign a value to) a distribution, a set of software tested together that works as a whole and was tested, validated. Third party software gains value by similarly, being written for a coherent set of software tested to work together.
Windows isn't a platform, it's a of distro(each edition, home, professional, ultimate is one distro actually, which share enough code to actually have some third party software that works across distros). Linux isn't a platform, but you can get many distros based on it. Operating System and Platform are useful theoretical concepts, and can be of use, usually outside the business context, but when it comes to corporate clients, and business environments, openbsd is a distro.
Each unix variant is a distro, and some variants(like trusted solaris) vary enough from the main distro to be considered a distro in its own right. I posit that seeing things this way reduces confusion.
That software like alien allows some(well written, or limited-enough) software to work across distros is an accident, and detracts from this simple, can explain it to grandma definition.
"Can I buy solitaire for windows vista ultimate edition?" gets an unequivocal Yes/No answer, and she can know if she has ultimate edition straight on the box.
The term platform should be restricted to software like java or lua, that's (mostly) interpreted, and works across distros, by bypassing the distro entirely, and usually reinventing the wheel quite a bit.
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing, except getting the browser makers to distribute it for you, especially Microsoft, at the expense of the technology(ActiveX) they developed to do just that, plus increase their stranglehold on desktops.
Why would they let you do what they failed to do?
You're confusing technology and science anyways. Advances in how you use a cellphone aren't advances in the science of the cellphone. Although touch interfaces are new enough to be new technology based on "newer" science. New science in cellphones really means "non-radio waves" cellphones, which haven't happened yet.
No wonder sci-fi is dying, so few people, even on slashdot, even know what it's about, and it has to fight off space opera/space fantasy to boot.
There's something wrong to my mind of giving a peace prize to someone who keeps picking fights for little reason.
If Linux deserves it, it might be because Linus is a consensus builder, unlike Stallman and Theo...
That's my two cents
They don't... On the other hand, what you do alive isn't likely to grow in value. With artists, being dead increases the value, since there is scarcity. It's part and parcel of "art". On the other hand, valuing artists by their lifespan would be pretty dumb and counterproductive.
I don't see how this is bad either. As for publishers... If they really feared this, they could always have offered longer contracts to artists... a 55 year contract? YUP!
Oh wait you mean they wouldn't have made so much money off the artists? What? You mean giving more money to artists back in the napster days was only ok... if it wasn't your money?
Hopefully, in ten years, the RIAA member companies will exit the music business, or be bankrupt. If you work for them, please find other work now. I'm so against them getting a bailout then.
As you pointed out, COD4 was "Modern Warfare I". So in a sense, it's the same team, doing a similar thing, gripping teaser violence that leaves you bewildered by the possibilities it represents, and wondering what else they have up their sleeve, if nothing else. Great marketing. That's just what this is.
Anything will prove "The tragedy of the commons" as it doesn't really need proof at this point. However, expanding the commons is like that. The alternative is a shrinking commons, or actually having enough accountability and imputability that it's not really "the commons" anymore, but some form of public property under private ownership or management. I for one welcome expanding commons.
As for cell bandwidth, the process is so political, it's not really surprising they refuse or fight less for frequencies that are better, and duke it out with google for poorer frequencies. It lets the management say it's all someone else's fault.
I was just thinking you were right... Anyone notice this is exactly the case with botox?
At this point, I think we've established we can't rule out it's deliberate hardheadedness on their part to make it as hard as possible to run a machine without IE. It just may be that they are afraid to have to explain just how tied in their apis and such are to that browser(more likely its bugs) or not. But IE's been hard to remove since windows 95... windows 2000 was for most intents and purposes a rearchitecture, and because nobody put a gun to their head to make it run without ie, it would not run without ie(without the aforementioned loops). Now windows 7 is here, and it will not run without IE. Not because Microsoft can't. Because it doesn't want it to. The ballot screen, AFAIC, is a way to give the europeran commission what it says it wants, without giving them that.
How hard Microsoft is refusing to just make people download IE should give us a clue.
The ballot screen has to go. The only fair option to everyone is Microsoft with no browser(except a command line/dll, at this rate, windows help probably can't run without it anyways, and making windows run without help would actually hurt some users, but not Microsoft). Just no user interface AT ALL capable of browsing the web. Make people get one, possibly using that dll, or have all the program installers preloaded, and delete all the ones the user doesn't want.
But an ie-free machine shouldn't require prayer or special disks. Unchecking a checkbox hidden behind ONE(that is a maximum) layer of "advanced setup" is plenty enough.
Make people choose it.
Do they just say why they won't route to it?
I realize it's assigned to arin, but why is it so special?
You're right, and that's not even counting the fact that human actors might alter the prediction. That industry boards have put stopgaps and an alternate standard ready for deployment in place, and that the monetary value of some of what's "scarce" now might affect it's supply.
Oddly enough, I wonder if the movies about "Computers" (say hackers, sneakers, etc...) have anything to do with the sliding perceptions. Now we get movies that are into technology like cloning, etc...
The technology just wasn't there in the 1980s... remember the internet had barely happened yet.
Have you considered that the algorithm might just be
a) "If user is hetero show ads from companies that want to reach hetero males"
b) "If user is gay show ads from companies that want to reach gay males"
c) "If unsure show both"
with your area, at the time, having no businesses that wanted to reach people through facebook?
I know I've yet to see a titty bar advertise on FB, and you had excluded the dating sites by saying you were in a relationship.
at 800 pages a book... that's quite a metric...
I wonder how it translates to LOCs...
is to realize it's a perfect textbook example why shortening a series can make it better, but seldom will lenghtening it will bring any good.
I thought "good enough" was the inevitable landing spot of technology ever since the betamax. Corporations won't go for that much better than consumers do(the consumers pay up anyways), and the inefficiencies in publically funded anything are just frightful. So I posit that technology that will be "good enough" will always win, unless the consumers start asking for "better than good enough" consistently. So far they haven't.
Excellent point, it's easy to ignore each of them is attempting basically, to become a monopoly.
A lot of people in this thread see "it can be abused so it's broken".
Only problem, anything can be abused, well at least, as long as we are based on neanderthals, and not some socially advanced post-hominids.
We're more likely to evolve telepathy than completely do away with the desire to abuse other humans because we can.
He's not groveling at amazon or at the consumers. He's refusing to cooperate, so your point is?
IMO, Amazon, there is just one answer to that: these are my consumers, News.com is the next SCO, prepare to die!
(This is IMO remember) The only way I'm buying a kindle is if the device seller acts as a guardian of the consumer, from the content providers. The content providers have much too often been monopolists lacking only a monopoly.
Well boy did I not expect this kind of reaction... I'm kinda on your side, really. I meant, here's someone that's saying that SSDs means you're no longer starving for spindles... And I say "well that's good, they were holding us back, we can do something better now, that's not a problem." On the other hand, it seems it's a lot more loaded politically in places that don't do this with just three admins, and no dedicated storage admins, so I'll just shut up now cuz I hate politics. You guys have a nice day.
Storage has been the performance bottleneck for so long, it's a happy problem if you actually must increase the bus speeds/cpu processors/get faster memory on raid cards to keep up. Seems to me the article(or at least the summary) was written by someone hadn't been following enterprise storage for very long...
No, it means we didn't want the Judge to say "there's no restriction on your use of this information, since it doesn't identify a person". Saying "This doesn't identify a person, by itself, so it's ok" would have worked. Saying "It identifies a computer, which could identify a person, so you can't have it" was the result the Judge didn't want to get.
As for the cameras, don't hold your breath, it's an attempt to use technology to stop a social problem, so it can only fail, but it will never be removed willingly by the state(because technology is either good, or bad, and if could be bad, you likely wouldn't be allowed in here).
Given Microsoft's attacks on GPL as a license, I just do not understand why they licensed it GPL instead of LGPL or BSD
I was thinking "well what happens if your indep carrier gets bought my a major" but it seems I was thinking too hard.
Can regulators get the really simple idea that "if the customer is restricted in changing, it's exclusive, and bad", or do we have to write it on their dead bodies first?
He's not confusing operating system and distribution. The D in BSD is for "Distribution", they practically invented the term.
It's a new idea, though, to have a distribution that wasn't responsible for the kernel. And several terms, like platform, and operating system, were inveted to differentiate from distribution as a result. IMHO, companies(corporate clients) do not confuse platform, operating system, or distribution, they can only evaluate(assign a value to) a distribution, a set of software tested together that works as a whole and was tested, validated. Third party software gains value by similarly, being written for a coherent set of software tested to work together.
Windows isn't a platform, it's a of distro(each edition, home, professional, ultimate is one distro actually, which share enough code to actually have some third party software that works across distros). Linux isn't a platform, but you can get many distros based on it. Operating System and Platform are useful theoretical concepts, and can be of use, usually outside the business context, but when it comes to corporate clients, and business environments, openbsd is a distro.
Each unix variant is a distro, and some variants(like trusted solaris) vary enough from the main distro to be considered a distro in its own right. I posit that seeing things this way reduces confusion.
That software like alien allows some(well written, or limited-enough) software to work across distros is an accident, and detracts from this simple, can explain it to grandma definition.
"Can I buy solitaire for windows vista ultimate edition?" gets an unequivocal Yes/No answer, and she can know if she has ultimate edition straight on the box.
The term platform should be restricted to software like java or lua, that's (mostly) interpreted, and works across distros, by bypassing the distro entirely, and usually reinventing the wheel quite a bit.