What makes you think that would hurt us more than them?
The Chinese deliberately hold vast amounts of western debt to artificially strengthen the dollar against their own currency. If they withdraw that money then the dollar sinks and their currency rises. All of a sudden Chinese goods become much more expensive in all of their main markets. And all it does is cause the yield to increase on bonds. Hardly the devastation that you claim.
No, I am missing neither. But you have deliberately confused inherited traits with learned behaviours and you continue to do so because either you think it strengthens your argument, or you can't see past your own bias.
"If your brain leads you to have success with birth control" does not describe an inherited trait. It describes a conditioned behaviour. The important difference being that conditioned behaviours are a response to the environment. There is a strong correlation between education and use of birth control. Only if you assume zero social mobility from the children of the group with poor birth control into the educated group of the next generation does your argument hold.
You are blindly making the assumption that use / non-use of birth control is a direct result of an inherited trait that controls brain development. All of the stats out there say that it strongly correlates with education rather than where abouts in the genetic pool you swam from.
So, and here is the basic logic / maths / biology lesson for you: If we have two groups A and B, where A uses birth control and B does not the we cannot assume anything about their relative population growth without knowing how individuals can pass between the groups. You have failed to account for this in your argument because your bias has blinded you to the fact that the group membership is porous, and not based on biology.
Indeed, I, became, the, anti, Shatner, for, a, time.
Online-mode on a wifi network it gets 2-3 days. In fact completely offline it might be 100+ hours.
Online it uses 3G, battery life is completely dependent on signal strength. Basically if you use it as you would expect: video camera, GPS, constantly online, then it struggles to reach 12-16 hours. More modest use will stretch a day.
Some of your pros/cons are based on assumptions that are not always true. That's not to say that they're wrong, just not always correct.
My reader is software running on an n900. The power source is irrelevant, while the phone drains battery like a bitch if I put it in offline mode and just use it to read then it lasts 90-100 hours. I'm never away from a plug socket for that long.
There is no DRM in my reader or on the books that I have. They are backed up to enough places in an open file format that they can be considered to be immortal, and can be freely distributed. The screen is 266dpi, which is better quality than a lot of paperbacks.
The plane restriction is a good point - but newer planes are getting around it. I've been in one flight already that allowed iPads while everything else was forbidden. It is slowly moving in the right direction.
The point about physical space goes further than you say. It is true that you can take more with you in the case that you state. But also: I can take my entire library with me everywhere that I go. This means that I can have books with me that I don't know that I will want/need in advance. That is a serious advantage over physical books.
Lastly, I had no idea until I started using a reader, but I prefer white text on a black background. It looks very weird at first, but is much easier on the eyes. You don't get that option in physical books because of the amount of ink it would consume.
In britain there is no presumption of innocence. There is no "Right To Be Presumed Innocent Until Proven Guilty
These two statements are not the same and your entire argument in this thread relies on them meaning the same thing. In a legal system with formally defined rights they would be the same (ie the US legal system). But in a system of common law there can be principles that are not formally stated.
In the case of this principle, it has been widely stated and incorporated into rulings in the British justice system. As such it forms a part of British law, regardless of whether or not we have a document that "grants" this "right" to people.
Very true. But then again I'm not suggesting that consoles will be replaced by portables. In fact I'd say the much bigger handicap is screen size. I *like* a 40" rendition of Wipeout. The same game on a PSP doesn't really compare.
envisions a future where all game devices are handhelds
So sure you may be right that portable devices won't completely replace consoles..... which is what the post that you replied was arguing in response to the topic being discussed. Try thinking before typing. It works for all ages.
Of course they work, you just seem to be confused about what they do. The purpose of a Ponzi scheme is for the people on a level to screw the people below them. In that sense they work perfectly.
You know points a) and c) are largely irrelevant. If you had known point b) in advance (say early 2000) then you could have made an absolute fortune. Simply short everything in the dot.com by the same amount. You'll lose on the two or three winners and clean-up on everyone else. Sadly, it is only hindsight that is 20:20...
You are defining service quality to be a narrow term that suits your agenda. That is not the standard definition of service quality which is wide enough to prioritise packets based on end-points, even if the choice of those end-points was a commercial decision.
Why would it be clear that using a header file creates a derivative work? (linking against libraries statically obviously does). The purpose of header files is to define interfaces. They don't leave any residual code in the final product. In most cases the final result of including a header file is a bunch of constants being defined (and numbers can't be copyrighted) and information about the layout of a library that is being called.
Remember: a copyrighted work must have some creative input. It is not the binary components of the SDK that Sony claim copyright on, rather it is the source-code behind them which was created by a human.
If the only influence on the output of a header file is that a table of numbers was baked into the residual code, then no derivative work can be claimed as there was no creativity in creating the original - it is simply a list of offsets, and databases of facts don't get treated the same way under copyright law as source does.
Again, I've never seen the SDK and the headers could easily have code in them in which case it's a whole different ball-game and something compiled from them would then clearly be a derivative work.
In your own world there is some moral distinction between good and bad filtering of packets. No doubt you think QoS looks for some "evil" bit in the header. In the real world QoS describes a bunch of techniques for prioritising packets according to some programmed criteria. It doesn't matter if the criteria is a technical decision (optimising these packets reduces latency for application X) or a business decision (optimisation these packets increases revenue). Both cases are QoS.
So reread the wiki text that I quoted. It explains this. The other thing that I can think of is that you have performed some kind of internal translation to make it read as what you want to see.
Yes, sharing copies of it is definitely copyright infringement.
and then distributing code compiled with it both are
Not exactly; if compiling "with" it means including some part of it for distribution then it is clearly a violation. But normally compiling with an SDK means compiling against it: distributing code that calls it, but not the SDK code itself. This is not a violation of copyright.
which is what everyone who is using the Sony SDK did. Copyright infringement is copyright infringement.
Are they? I've never used it so I don't know but does the final executable contain / redistribute some part of their code, or just use their API. Because only one of these two cases is violating.
If Sony didn't grant you a license to use the PS3 SDK, then you aren't allowed to legally use it.
Nope, that's just wrong, or at the very least a stretch too far. Redistributing any part of their copyrighted material without a license is a violation of their copyright. But using it without their permission is not in itself a breach.
Actually QoS is a broader topic than that and includes choosing which packets to drop based on criteria not limited to latency.
In the field of computer networking and other packet-switched telecommunication networks, the traffic engineering term quality of service (QoS) refers to resource reservation control mechanisms rather than the achieved service quality. Quality of service is the ability to provide different priority to different applications, users, or data flows, or to guarantee a certain level of performance to a data flow. For example, a required bit rate, delay, jitter, packet dropping probability and/or bit error rate may be guaranteed. Quality of service guarantees are important if the network capacity is insufficient, especially for real-time streaming multimedia applications such as voice over IP, online games and IP-TV, since these often require fixed bit rate and are delay sensitive, and in networks where the capacity is a limited resource, for example in cellular data communication.
Wrong in every way. Bandwidth is not infinite, when a pipe is running at capacity you need to decide which packets to keep and which to drop. It's called quality of service, and it's been around for a looooong time...
And yet with all of this knowledge and my piss-takey reference to the summary you felt the need to write a long response. 10/10 for knowledge about russia, but whoosh none the less
I can read Russian just fine thanks. For your information this IS news because it is a carnival ride rusting. Sheesh even Taco pointed that one out for you.
It may seem offensive, but it is aimed at kids and I bet the sentences that you can write carefully avoid "The pool's closed", "I'd hit that" and "For the lulz".
Slashdot Mirror
What makes you think that would hurt us more than them?
The Chinese deliberately hold vast amounts of western debt to artificially strengthen the dollar against their own currency. If they withdraw that money then the dollar sinks and their currency rises. All of a sudden Chinese goods become much more expensive in all of their main markets. And all it does is cause the yield to increase on bonds. Hardly the devastation that you claim.
No, I am missing neither. But you have deliberately confused inherited traits with learned behaviours and you continue to do so because either you think it strengthens your argument, or you can't see past your own bias.
"If your brain leads you to have success with birth control" does not describe an inherited trait. It describes a conditioned behaviour. The important difference being that conditioned behaviours are a response to the environment. There is a strong correlation between education and use of birth control. Only if you assume zero social mobility from the children of the group with poor birth control into the educated group of the next generation does your argument hold.
You are blindly making the assumption that use / non-use of birth control is a direct result of an inherited trait that controls brain development. All of the stats out there say that it strongly correlates with education rather than where abouts in the genetic pool you swam from.
So, and here is the basic logic / maths / biology lesson for you:
If we have two groups A and B, where A uses birth control and B does not the we cannot assume anything about their relative population growth without knowing how individuals can pass between the groups. You have failed to account for this in your argument because your bias has blinded you to the fact that the group membership is porous, and not based on biology.
IF the death rates in the two groups that you describe are equal (they are not) AND there is zero social mobility between the two groups.
Indeed, I, became, the, anti, Shatner, for, a, time.
Online-mode on a wifi network it gets 2-3 days. In fact completely offline it might be 100+ hours.
Online it uses 3G, battery life is completely dependent on signal strength. Basically if you use it as you would expect: video camera, GPS, constantly online, then it struggles to reach 12-16 hours. More modest use will stretch a day.
Yes, but think how many tablets those 6 million books are going to create. They're going to be breeding down in the basement...
Some of your pros/cons are based on assumptions that are not always true. That's not to say that they're wrong, just not always correct.
My reader is software running on an n900. The power source is irrelevant, while the phone drains battery like a bitch if I put it in offline mode and just use it to read then it lasts 90-100 hours. I'm never away from a plug socket for that long.
There is no DRM in my reader or on the books that I have. They are backed up to enough places in an open file format that they can be considered to be immortal, and can be freely distributed. The screen is 266dpi, which is better quality than a lot of paperbacks.
The plane restriction is a good point - but newer planes are getting around it. I've been in one flight already that allowed iPads while everything else was forbidden. It is slowly moving in the right direction.
The point about physical space goes further than you say. It is true that you can take more with you in the case that you state. But also: I can take my entire library with me everywhere that I go. This means that I can have books with me that I don't know that I will want/need in advance. That is a serious advantage over physical books.
Lastly, I had no idea until I started using a reader, but I prefer white text on a black background. It looks very weird at first, but is much easier on the eyes. You don't get that option in physical books because of the amount of ink it would consume.
These two statements are not the same and your entire argument in this thread relies on them meaning the same thing. In a legal system with formally defined rights they would be the same (ie the US legal system). But in a system of common law there can be principles that are not formally stated.
In the case of this principle, it has been widely stated and incorporated into rulings in the British justice system. As such it forms a part of British law, regardless of whether or not we have a document that "grants" this "right" to people.
Very true. But then again I'm not suggesting that consoles will be replaced by portables. In fact I'd say the much bigger handicap is screen size. I *like* a 40" rendition of Wipeout. The same game on a PSP doesn't really compare.
Did you even read the summary?
So sure you may be right that portable devices won't completely replace consoles..... which is what the post that you replied was arguing in response to the topic being discussed. Try thinking before typing. It works for all ages.
That, and a primitive form of fusion would be all that is required to turn us into 9V batteries.
What does in this life? It almost seems as if we should stop believing advertising... Especially for schemes that promise quick and easy wealth.
Of course they work, you just seem to be confused about what they do. The purpose of a Ponzi scheme is for the people on a level to screw the people below them. In that sense they work perfectly.
You know points a) and c) are largely irrelevant. If you had known point b) in advance (say early 2000) then you could have made an absolute fortune. Simply short everything in the dot.com by the same amount. You'll lose on the two or three winners and clean-up on everyone else. Sadly, it is only hindsight that is 20:20...
You are defining service quality to be a narrow term that suits your agenda. That is not the standard definition of service quality which is wide enough to prioritise packets based on end-points, even if the choice of those end-points was a commercial decision.
Why would it be clear that using a header file creates a derivative work? (linking against libraries statically obviously does). The purpose of header files is to define interfaces. They don't leave any residual code in the final product. In most cases the final result of including a header file is a bunch of constants being defined (and numbers can't be copyrighted) and information about the layout of a library that is being called.
Remember: a copyrighted work must have some creative input. It is not the binary components of the SDK that Sony claim copyright on, rather it is the source-code behind them which was created by a human.
If the only influence on the output of a header file is that a table of numbers was baked into the residual code, then no derivative work can be claimed as there was no creativity in creating the original - it is simply a list of offsets, and databases of facts don't get treated the same way under copyright law as source does.
Again, I've never seen the SDK and the headers could easily have code in them in which case it's a whole different ball-game and something compiled from them would then clearly be a derivative work.
In your own world there is some moral distinction between good and bad filtering of packets. No doubt you think QoS looks for some "evil" bit in the header. In the real world QoS describes a bunch of techniques for prioritising packets according to some programmed criteria. It doesn't matter if the criteria is a technical decision (optimising these packets reduces latency for application X) or a business decision (optimisation these packets increases revenue). Both cases are QoS.
So reread the wiki text that I quoted. It explains this. The other thing that I can think of is that you have performed some kind of internal translation to make it read as what you want to see.
Yes, sharing copies of it is definitely copyright infringement.
Not exactly; if compiling "with" it means including some part of it for distribution then it is clearly a violation. But normally compiling with an SDK means compiling against it: distributing code that calls it, but not the SDK code itself. This is not a violation of copyright.
Are they? I've never used it so I don't know but does the final executable contain / redistribute some part of their code, or just use their API. Because only one of these two cases is violating.
Nope, that's just wrong, or at the very least a stretch too far. Redistributing any part of their copyrighted material without a license is a violation of their copyright. But using it without their permission is not in itself a breach.
No. Read my other reply (which was made before you posted). It explains exactly why you are wrong.
Actually QoS is a broader topic than that and includes choosing which packets to drop based on criteria not limited to latency.
As wikipedia says.
Wrong in every way. Bandwidth is not infinite, when a pipe is running at capacity you need to decide which packets to keep and which to drop. It's called quality of service, and it's been around for a looooong time...
So there is no known explanation for why Thunderbird is such a bloated piece of crap...
And yet with all of this knowledge and my piss-takey reference to the summary you felt the need to write a long response. 10/10 for knowledge about russia, but whoosh none the less
Wooooosh. There were enough references to the summary in there...
I can read Russian just fine thanks. For your information this IS news because it is a carnival ride rusting. Sheesh even Taco pointed that one out for you.
It may seem offensive, but it is aimed at kids and I bet the sentences that you can write carefully avoid "The pool's closed", "I'd hit that" and "For the lulz".