Please look at the parent post being responded to before criticizing:
They failed. People starved, or froze.
Clearly the author indicated that private charities were a failure because people still starved or froze. He also indicates his preference for the current system, which he doesn't view as a failure.
Thus it is not unreasonable to make the argument that since people still starve and freeze, we can't consider the current system a success under those particular criteria.
Trek fans don't care about generic storylines with plot holes big enough to fly a fleet of cloaked warbirds through... all we want is dune buggy fights and celebrity cameos.
The RAM thing is my only concern. The RAM upgrade to 1 GB (1 chip since there's only 1 slot) is so prohibitively expensive that you might as well say 512 is the limit...
I still think I want one, but I'm not going to be an early adopter like I was with the $200 Lindows PC (which, incidentally, I'm still using as my main work system).
Even if there might someday be a compelling reason for faster CPUs, there just isn't yet.
As far as I'm concerned, we hit the wall years ago. The system I'm typing on now is a 1.1 Ghz Duron with enough RAM to run SuSE at a nice rate. My laptop is a 400 Mhz G3 that also, in all honesty, is as fast as it needs to be. Both are now about 4 year old technology.
Until the new killer app comes out that absolutely needs a faster processor, most people are going to keep buying on the low end, and companies like Intel are going to see dwindling returns on new chips.
1. Does a vague description of a product passed off as a rumor really constitute a "trade secret".
2. Since this is a tort, and not a criminal offense, Apple needs to prove some damage has been done. What actual material harm arises from a small website printing a rumor that has some factual basis?
3. Since the spirit of this law is to prevent anti-competitive practices, can we really apply it here? This is not a competitor of Apple's that is being sued, and any action they took clearly was not intended to give them an "unfair advantage" over Apple.
The average customer shouldn't have to read every single banking regulation to know whether or not the bank can do what it says it's going to do in a letter... here's what the bank's agreement said:
(The bank) may, at it's option, provide account holder information to third parties for marketing or other purposes unless specifically requested not to by the account holder in writing. If you do not wish your information shared, send a letter to:
The bank I used to use actually said the exact opposite: They can share with anybody unless you specifically tell them not to.
The thing is, every 3 months or so they send a new copy of the (slightly modified) privacy agreement and if you don't send them another letter saying don't share my info, they consider it acceptance of the 'new' policy.
That most of us here can name more than 20 "great programmers". I guess that's one of the beauties of the internet, you can be a celebrity in about anything these days. If we did a list of all the great propgrammers that most of the people at Slashdot have heard of, I wonder how long it would be. Would it be longer than the list of people, for example, playing in the NBA?
I'm glad to see guys like Klaus Knopper and Guido from Python get some credit, but then I wonder how both Yukihiro Matsumoto and Jordan Hubbard not only failed to make the list, but failed to get any votes at all.
They never actually said why they were taking them, but the assumption is that it has something to do with the servers containing anti-WTO activists' contact information.
The question then is, what is the good of "catching them" so far after the fact, which is all the present system has been able to do anyhow. So some guy that worked at Enron spends the rest of his life in prison, what good does that do its investors? Is some vague sense of revenge really a good enough reason to regulate the market so?
They can fine them, because Paypal is not the government. Legal only means the government won't go out and stop them... not that private citizens and companies can't shun those who do business with them.
There's no law saying the liquor store can fine you $30 for an insufficient funds check, but they still do.
Slashdot Mirror
Its the Way of Slashdot (TM)
I can't recall an interesting truth I've ever posted on here that didn't get modded -1 Troll
Please look at the parent post being responded to before criticizing:
They failed. People starved, or froze.
Clearly the author indicated that private charities were a failure because people still starved or froze. He also indicates his preference for the current system, which he doesn't view as a failure.
Thus it is not unreasonable to make the argument that since people still starve and freeze, we can't consider the current system a success under those particular criteria.
That's because private charities don't steal their money. Hand it over to the mafia and we might crack 99.9...
Its good to know that no one starves or freezes anymore though...
Trek fans don't care about generic storylines with plot holes big enough to fly a fleet of cloaked warbirds through... all we want is dune buggy fights and celebrity cameos.
They don't need it now... its just a question of upgradability.
The RAM thing is my only concern. The RAM upgrade to 1 GB (1 chip since there's only 1 slot) is so prohibitively expensive that you might as well say 512 is the limit... I still think I want one, but I'm not going to be an early adopter like I was with the $200 Lindows PC (which, incidentally, I'm still using as my main work system).
He's got a point:
Even if there might someday be a compelling reason for faster CPUs, there just isn't yet.
As far as I'm concerned, we hit the wall years ago. The system I'm typing on now is a 1.1 Ghz Duron with enough RAM to run SuSE at a nice rate. My laptop is a 400 Mhz G3 that also, in all honesty, is as fast as it needs to be. Both are now about 4 year old technology.
Until the new killer app comes out that absolutely needs a faster processor, most people are going to keep buying on the low end, and companies like Intel are going to see dwindling returns on new chips.
Still a tough case to make on a number of levels:
1. Does a vague description of a product passed off as a rumor really constitute a "trade secret".
2. Since this is a tort, and not a criminal offense, Apple needs to prove some damage has been done. What actual material harm arises from a small website printing a rumor that has some factual basis?
3. Since the spirit of this law is to prevent anti-competitive practices, can we really apply it here? This is not a competitor of Apple's that is being sued, and any action they took clearly was not intended to give them an "unfair advantage" over Apple.
Even if they paid, I'm not clear what "law" they're breaking by getting someone to violate an NDA.
They could do worse than base it off Kword.
The average customer shouldn't have to read every single banking regulation to know whether or not the bank can do what it says it's going to do in a letter... here's what the bank's agreement said:
(The bank) may, at it's option, provide account holder information to third parties for marketing or other purposes unless specifically requested not to by the account holder in writing. If you do not wish your information shared, send a letter to:
(Address)
Not to mention the boon for the economy. We need to outlaw earthquakes so we can have longer days...
It's the only way to save social security!
The bank I used to use actually said the exact opposite: They can share with anybody unless you specifically tell them not to.
The thing is, every 3 months or so they send a new copy of the (slightly modified) privacy agreement and if you don't send them another letter saying don't share my info, they consider it acceptance of the 'new' policy.
my Gamecube has a gameboy player attached to it.
So is it now a Gameboycube?
I'm sure I'm not the only person uncomfortable with giving police free reign every time they run into a situation they don't understand.
That most of us here can name more than 20 "great programmers". I guess that's one of the beauties of the internet, you can be a celebrity in about anything these days. If we did a list of all the great propgrammers that most of the people at Slashdot have heard of, I wonder how long it would be. Would it be longer than the list of people, for example, playing in the NBA?
I'm glad to see guys like Klaus Knopper and Guido from Python get some credit, but then I wonder how both Yukihiro Matsumoto and Jordan Hubbard not only failed to make the list, but failed to get any votes at all.
There aren't federal trespassing laws. The whole result of this case is that it's really in the wrong court system.
The crime committed had nothing to do with federal law whatsoever.
The reasoning is that they paid a lot more for WP from the WP Corporation than they got when they later sold it to Corel.
The argument is that MSFT is to blame for a lot of that loss in value
Yeah, in an ideal world Sony would've sued you and you'd still be working to pay off the settlement.
They never actually said why they were taking them, but the assumption is that it has something to do with the servers containing anti-WTO activists' contact information.
Wait, we voted on google's image search engine?
Yes, it does contradict libertrian ideals.
The question then is, what is the good of "catching them" so far after the fact, which is all the present system has been able to do anyhow. So some guy that worked at Enron spends the rest of his life in prison, what good does that do its investors? Is some vague sense of revenge really a good enough reason to regulate the market so?
They can fine them, because Paypal is not the government. Legal only means the government won't go out and stop them... not that private citizens and companies can't shun those who do business with them.
There's no law saying the liquor store can fine you $30 for an insufficient funds check, but they still do.
You're right... except gold still has benefits over fiat money because:
1. Gold's demand is not government specific.
2. Gold supply is predictable
3. Gold has value/demand beyond its use as a medium of exchange
Vulgar?
That fucking movie gave me nightmares...