Yeah, I forgot that a random slashdotter and a Wired reporter represented a more objective and thoroughly-demonstrated truth than a public trial. My bad.
Ceglia is a convicted scam artist, and the Winklevosses aren't exactly short of money. They showed up in court with 5 lawyers from 2 different firms. They lost because their cases had no merit.
You will never be able to cite Wikipedia in a paper without looking foolish. It really isn't designed for that
Encyclopaedias in general were not designed for that. The method you outlined should have been used if your got your information from EB as well, and you would have looked foolish if you'd cited any encyclopaedia in any university-level paper.
If you were citing the Encyclopaedia Britannica, then your papers weren't worth much in the first place. Look up the citations on Wikipedia, read them, and cite those.
Until China dumps again, and then you lose your billion-dollar investments into infrastructure and engineering as demand for your (comparatively) expensive product drops to zero.
Google is still a one hit wonder, with 96% of their revenue generated by search and advertising.
Wrong. 96% of their revenue was generated by advertising, not search and advertising.
Except is that really happening?
Yes, it is. Advertisers is who pays them money. Their various services are the reason advertisers pay them. It's like criticising a supermarket for not being diversified, because all their income comes from customers exchanging money for goods. In reality, the diversity (and quality and cost) of their product lines is the driver for all that spending.
1) Patent trolls who don't have a product are in no position to threaten a large company. Except in the unusual case of an SCO whose litigation is funded by a major corporation, they can't afford to bring a proper lawsuit.
I agree totally - that still doesn't make what I said wrong - it was the union (or the contract the union brokered) that's forcing them to stay employed
I used to hire Heroes (level 4 NPC mercenaries), take them out into the slums, and at the end of a random enounter, put them under with a Sleep spell, murder them while they napped, and hock their magic weapons (after my characters were all decked out of course). Got me up the first few levels really quickly (lots of XP for a level 4 kill at level 1) and a decent chunk of change.
And it's not a requirement of the functional design - in fact, don't you remember people complaining about trying to type on the iPad while it rotated on that same curved back?
That wasn't what I said. I said it was a mechanical requirement. The shape of the case was determined by the shape of the components it needed to house. The fact that this made it a pain to type on when it was at rest on a surface was a side-effect.
On the contrary, check out the infamous Kubrick 2001 tablets
You mean, the fictional ones that never existed? Look at your monitor, your laptop, your TV - any device with a screen. Where do they place their screen? In the center, with possibly an extra-large bezel wherever they put their controls.
Yes, and you're apparently admitting that they're unique.
What, you think no device in the history of humanity has ever used that particular radius? They shouldn't be patentable because they're trivial, not because they're unique.
You only infringe the patent on [a]+[b]+[c] if you make something with [a]+[b]+[c]
Unless you're Samsung - whose Galaxy Tab didn't have the a single home button at the center-bottom of the device, and yet still attracted the ire of Apple's lawyer-pack.
Actually, as we've discussed, Apple patented a whole bunch of explicit design features. Not the absence of said features.
Apple patented a bunch of trivial design features. The very fact that their patent can be reduced to nothing but the size of their bezel and the radius of the corners shows that Apple had nothing of actual distinction to include in their patent. I guess we're lucky they didn't patent the colour black while they were at it.
Note that its not the union that's forcing these them to stay employed. That's the rules of their contract that say they can't be fired without documented reasons.
...which the union negotiated on behalf of the teachers.
It is good to have this debate, but like abortion, this is an area where people who deal with the messy situations that life provides should get to drive the policy, rather than any particularly flavour of god-botherers.
So, basically, ignore all discussion of morality by labelling it all as "god-bothering" (you are aware that there are plenty of moral systems not derived from religion, yes?), and just go straight to "ends justified the means". What could possibly go wrong?
You don't assign every police officer to murder cases and let cases of car theft go uninvestigated, do you? You don't spend all of your resources going after counterfeiters and ignore the guy stealing social security checks from peoples' mailboxes.
No, but neither do you assign 1000% more funding to the social security check thieves than the anti-counterfeiting squad, and spend time training up all ten times more people to perform the former function than the latter.
Yes, those particular officers aren't interchangeable. That doesn't mean anti-piracy tunnel-vision isn't an endemic problem in US law enforcement.
Um, he gave an example. Anyone employed by a government-run prison profits by it. And yes, prisoners are used as slave labour - or "community service" as we call it.
The problem is that the social dynamics of Kickstarter don't work very well for F/OSS, given that pledges are generally tightly tied to specific rewards (and pledges are amplified by the project creating "artificial scarcity").
So? The scarcity in the rewards doesn't have to be scarcity of the software - and if you look at the rewards offered, that's generally only true of the very lowest tiers. Above that, you have rewards like "name in the credits", or participation in the creative process, or game elements named after you, or a dozen other things of that nature.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I forgot that a random slashdotter and a Wired reporter represented a more objective and thoroughly-demonstrated truth than a public trial. My bad.
Ceglia is a convicted scam artist, and the Winklevosses aren't exactly short of money. They showed up in court with 5 lawyers from 2 different firms. They lost because their cases had no merit.
"Terminate and Stay Resident" and "Tactical Studies Rules" were pretty much contemporaneous I think.
You will never be able to cite Wikipedia in a paper without looking foolish. It really isn't designed for that
Encyclopaedias in general were not designed for that. The method you outlined should have been used if your got your information from EB as well, and you would have looked foolish if you'd cited any encyclopaedia in any university-level paper.
If you were citing the Encyclopaedia Britannica, then your papers weren't worth much in the first place. Look up the citations on Wikipedia, read them, and cite those.
It's all a question of how much that nostalgia was worth to you. And apparently, it wasn't worth $1500 a year to many people at all.
Until China dumps again, and then you lose your billion-dollar investments into infrastructure and engineering as demand for your (comparatively) expensive product drops to zero.
Google is still a one hit wonder, with 96% of their revenue generated by search and advertising.
Wrong. 96% of their revenue was generated by advertising, not search and advertising.
Except is that really happening?
Yes, it is. Advertisers is who pays them money. Their various services are the reason advertisers pay them. It's like criticising a supermarket for not being diversified, because all their income comes from customers exchanging money for goods. In reality, the diversity (and quality and cost) of their product lines is the driver for all that spending.
1) Patent trolls who don't have a product are in no position to threaten a large company. Except in the unusual case of an SCO whose litigation is funded by a major corporation, they can't afford to bring a proper lawsuit.
Eolas?
I agree totally - that still doesn't make what I said wrong - it was the union (or the contract the union brokered) that's forcing them to stay employed
Yes. Which is why I didn't suggest it should be added to the 1980s list. I just said it was better than FF7
And I finished the PC version of FF7 without cheating - maybe probably patched that bug at some stage.
Which has what to do with the GGPs claim that the union wasn't involved?
You're the expert - you're obviously so sloshed you can't read quoted posts
While technically true, your comment has no relevance except to pedants.
in the first trial we found the guy guilty (he was totally guilty of beating up and robbing the victim).
And this relates to the OPs comments about juries overseeing cases involving victimless crime how?
Well, they're green
No, they had Dungeon Master there. Also, the fact that they are PCmag may be a clue as to why all their screenshots were taken on PCs.
I used to hire Heroes (level 4 NPC mercenaries), take them out into the slums, and at the end of a random enounter, put them under with a Sleep spell, murder them while they napped, and hock their magic weapons (after my characters were all decked out of course). Got me up the first few levels really quickly (lots of XP for a level 4 kill at level 1) and a decent chunk of change.
And my Lawful Good characters didn't even care :P
Title of this article: Computer Games That Defined RPGs In the 1980s When was FF7 released?
Besides, FF6 was better :P
And it's not a requirement of the functional design - in fact, don't you remember people complaining about trying to type on the iPad while it rotated on that same curved back?
That wasn't what I said. I said it was a mechanical requirement. The shape of the case was determined by the shape of the components it needed to house. The fact that this made it a pain to type on when it was at rest on a surface was a side-effect.
On the contrary, check out the infamous Kubrick 2001 tablets
You mean, the fictional ones that never existed? Look at your monitor, your laptop, your TV - any device with a screen. Where do they place their screen? In the center, with possibly an extra-large bezel wherever they put their controls.
Yes, and you're apparently admitting that they're unique.
What, you think no device in the history of humanity has ever used that particular radius? They shouldn't be patentable because they're trivial, not because they're unique.
You only infringe the patent on [a]+[b]+[c] if you make something with [a]+[b]+[c]
Unless you're Samsung - whose Galaxy Tab didn't have the a single home button at the center-bottom of the device, and yet still attracted the ire of Apple's lawyer-pack.
Actually, as we've discussed, Apple patented a whole bunch of explicit design features. Not the absence of said features.
Apple patented a bunch of trivial design features. The very fact that their patent can be reduced to nothing but the size of their bezel and the radius of the corners shows that Apple had nothing of actual distinction to include in their patent. I guess we're lucky they didn't patent the colour black while they were at it.
Note that its not the union that's forcing these them to stay employed. That's the rules of their contract that say they can't be fired without documented reasons.
...which the union negotiated on behalf of the teachers.
It is good to have this debate, but like abortion, this is an area where people who deal with the messy situations that life provides should get to drive the policy, rather than any particularly flavour of god-botherers.
So, basically, ignore all discussion of morality by labelling it all as "god-bothering" (you are aware that there are plenty of moral systems not derived from religion, yes?), and just go straight to "ends justified the means". What could possibly go wrong?
You don't assign every police officer to murder cases and let cases of car theft go uninvestigated, do you? You don't spend all of your resources going after counterfeiters and ignore the guy stealing social security checks from peoples' mailboxes.
No, but neither do you assign 1000% more funding to the social security check thieves than the anti-counterfeiting squad, and spend time training up all ten times more people to perform the former function than the latter.
Yes, those particular officers aren't interchangeable. That doesn't mean anti-piracy tunnel-vision isn't an endemic problem in US law enforcement.
Um, he gave an example. Anyone employed by a government-run prison profits by it. And yes, prisoners are used as slave labour - or "community service" as we call it.
The problem is that the social dynamics of Kickstarter don't work very well for F/OSS, given that pledges are generally tightly tied to specific rewards (and pledges are amplified by the project creating "artificial scarcity").
So? The scarcity in the rewards doesn't have to be scarcity of the software - and if you look at the rewards offered, that's generally only true of the very lowest tiers. Above that, you have rewards like "name in the credits", or participation in the creative process, or game elements named after you, or a dozen other things of that nature.