The problem is no-one really makes high-spec phones below a 4" screen size any more. (Except Apple, but the iPhone 5 is rumoured to be bigger). if you want a high-end phone with a 3" screen...you're screwed. You have no choice.
"I wonder if a famous driver didn't occasionally die in a fiery crash would the sport be as popular as it is today."
Almost certainly. F1 fans are nothing like NASCAR fans, note; I don't know anyone who watches F1 for the crashes. Whenever there's been a fatal crash in F1 it's been taken terribly seriously and the fans have always fully supported the resulting safety measures.
Interestingly, often the _drivers_ are more resistant to safety measures than fans and organizers. Monaco is massively popular with F1 drivers even though the place is a deathtrap. There's often even a lunatic fringe of drivers who want to take F1 back to the Nurburgring. The authorities wouldn't dream of doing it, the publicity would be terrible.
"I've wondered what F1 would be like without all the restrictions."
Extremely dull and _incredibly_ dangerous.
Back in the 1980s, in the Le Mans 24 Hours, there were several instances of prototypes flipping on the huge straight they had back then, a few times with devastatingly fatal consequences. That's why they put in a couple of chicanes, and restricted some of the aerodynamic devices.
In F1 they'd probably rapidly reach the limits of a human's capacity to process information fast enough to drive the car and also to resist the G-forces. Then they'd want to switch to remote or automated drivers. At which point the whole thing becomes even more of a tech demo for extremely rich car companies than it already is.
Well, that and it's one of the most 'extreme' of major sporting events, in the sense of 'requiring absurd levels of stamina', and hence most susceptible to stamina-focused doping (EPO, blood transfusions, all that stuff).
There seem to be two main justifications by people who acknowledge cheating - they thought they were 'righting a wrong' in some way, i.e. they thought it was _technically_ cheating but not really, or 'everyone else was doing it, why not me', which is the one constantly cited by athletes and cyclists who get caught. 'There's no way I could compete if I was clean, I was just getting myself up to everyone else's level'.
Of course, there's always the most straightforward 'I just wanted the money'. If you're right on the cusp of a career as a moderately successful professional sports player, you don't really know what else you can do, and you know taking this one drug will get you over the line...that's a pretty big motivator. You sail, I'm presuming, _recreationally_. It's not your livelihood. Right?
No, it's not a scrollbar. It's the sort of 'lozenge' design you get on iPhones and, these days, Android. There is no bar at all, only the little lozenge that on a regular scrollbar is the position indicator. The key realization that whoever actually invented this had is that a scrollbar is designed for direct interaction; on smartphones no-one scrolls by poking the scrollbar, they scroll by swiping. So you don't need most of the regular scrollbar design at all - you don't need the bar or the up/down arrows. All you need is something that indicates position in the document when the user is scrolling. So the lozenge appears when you're scrolling to indicate position within the document; when you stop scrolling it goes away again.
Can you find any reference to such a design prior to 2007? I had a quick look around when I read about this yesterday and couldn't find any. I suspect it's actually true that someone at Apple _did_ come up with the idea of an auto-hiding scroll widget without the bar.
Damn it, Google, could you please stick to being consistently evil or consistently good? This constant flip-flopping just leaves everyone unsure whether to get out the ticker tape or the flaming torches.
It's only Slashdot where the organization's name - the ITU - is inevitably prefixed by 'the UN's', or something similar. The ITU pre-dates the UN and was simply brought into the UN's general umbrella because that's a logical thing to do with an international standard-setting organization. Slashdot is being rather effectively manipulated by people who, for whatever reason, want to back up the FCC's scaremongering about the ITU's alleged 'takeover of the internet' (for which the only evidence appears to be...allegations by the FCC.)
Congratulations on getting your story about how awesome you are on Slashdot. I am not going to answer any of your questions because it's clear that wasn't your goal anyway.
No, they can't, as the Obamacare decision cited as one vital point in its characterization of the penalty as a 'tax' that it wasn't so high as to make paying it an unreasonable option. i.e., if the penalty had been so high that it wouldn't have been practical for people to pay it, it wouldn't have been constitutional.
In shape, but not in detail. There is a vast difference between a society where the richest are 100 times poorer than the poorest, and one where the richest are 100,000 times richer.
"If the Ecuadorians fail to grant Assange political asylum, which is a possibility, will he be arrested by Metropolitan Police, and sent to Sweden to stand trial for two alleged counts of 'rape?' "
Why the scare quotes around rape? And why 'alleged'? The counts are most definitely of rape, and they - the _counts_ definitely exist. He faces trial on two counts of rape. The trial will determine what actions actually took place - i.e. whether the actions *alleged* to have taken place by the police did in fact happen - and whether they meet the legal definition of rape. It's the actions that are alleged, not the charges, and there is no need for the scare quotes.
"When they can force you to buy something from a private company, game over."
The irony is that the judgment (Roberts' opinion) says precisely that the government can't do that, and the ACA was upheld only because it doesn't, strictly speaking, work: it's constitutional because it doesn't really _force_ you to buy health insurance. On the contrary, it only penalizes you fairly weakly if you don't. Roberts notes that the only consequences to not buying health insurance are that you are required to pay a reasonably small amount to the IRS. Not buying health insurance won't be a criminal offence and has no regulatory consequences beyond the payment to the IRS. He also specifically notes that the amount of the payment isn't actually enough that paying it isn't a reasonable option. In other words, if you're absolutely determined not to buy health insurance - you can. You just have to pay a moderate tax. As Roberts wrote:
"Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax. The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy health insurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penalties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation...None of this is to say that payment is not intended to induce the purchase of health insurance. But the mandate need not be read to declare that failing to do so is unlawful. Neither the Affordable Care Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. And Congress’s choice of language—stating that individuals “shall” obtain insurance or pay a “penalty”—does not require reading 5000A as punishing unlawful conduct. It may also be read as imposing a tax on those who go without insurance."
In practice the ACA probably will work, because if you have a choice of paying money and getting something (health insurance) or paying money and getting nothing (penalty/tax), you're going to go with the 'pay money and get something' option. But it's important to note the implicit restrictions on the government in Roberts' opinion.
Try reading the article, rather than the summary. It's not a bunch of Apple employees complaining they're not being paid enough. It's a lot more nuanced (and interesting).
Comparing it to what you earned two decades ago, as other repliers have said, is absurd. The appropriate comparison is 'similar jobs at the present time'. It seems to be true that $12/hr isn't a terrible starting wage in retail, though, and the story is really just spinning it. Certainly where I live, that's a fairly normal retail wage.
It covers just about every objection raised here, and in general why things aren't as easy as some commenters seem to think.
And just to make the point everywhere people may see it - this _only_ affects updates via the graphical updater. If you want to keep updating on the fly with yum, you can. Nothing will stop you.
Slashdot Mirror
The number I would pick would be the number at which reputable scientists and engineers tell me to shut the damn thing off...
So...can anyone see where he makes some kind of logical connection between app piracy and openness? Cos I'm not seeing it.
The problem is no-one really makes high-spec phones below a 4" screen size any more. (Except Apple, but the iPhone 5 is rumoured to be bigger). if you want a high-end phone with a 3" screen...you're screwed. You have no choice.
"I wonder if a famous driver didn't occasionally die in a fiery crash would the sport be as popular as it is today."
Almost certainly. F1 fans are nothing like NASCAR fans, note; I don't know anyone who watches F1 for the crashes. Whenever there's been a fatal crash in F1 it's been taken terribly seriously and the fans have always fully supported the resulting safety measures.
Interestingly, often the _drivers_ are more resistant to safety measures than fans and organizers. Monaco is massively popular with F1 drivers even though the place is a deathtrap. There's often even a lunatic fringe of drivers who want to take F1 back to the Nurburgring. The authorities wouldn't dream of doing it, the publicity would be terrible.
"I've wondered what F1 would be like without all the restrictions."
Extremely dull and _incredibly_ dangerous.
Back in the 1980s, in the Le Mans 24 Hours, there were several instances of prototypes flipping on the huge straight they had back then, a few times with devastatingly fatal consequences. That's why they put in a couple of chicanes, and restricted some of the aerodynamic devices.
In F1 they'd probably rapidly reach the limits of a human's capacity to process information fast enough to drive the car and also to resist the G-forces. Then they'd want to switch to remote or automated drivers. At which point the whole thing becomes even more of a tech demo for extremely rich car companies than it already is.
It has a daily dose variant now, just like Cialis. You haven't seen the commercials?
Well, that and it's one of the most 'extreme' of major sporting events, in the sense of 'requiring absurd levels of stamina', and hence most susceptible to stamina-focused doping (EPO, blood transfusions, all that stuff).
There seem to be two main justifications by people who acknowledge cheating - they thought they were 'righting a wrong' in some way, i.e. they thought it was _technically_ cheating but not really, or 'everyone else was doing it, why not me', which is the one constantly cited by athletes and cyclists who get caught. 'There's no way I could compete if I was clean, I was just getting myself up to everyone else's level'.
Of course, there's always the most straightforward 'I just wanted the money'. If you're right on the cusp of a career as a moderately successful professional sports player, you don't really know what else you can do, and you know taking this one drug will get you over the line...that's a pretty big motivator. You sail, I'm presuming, _recreationally_. It's not your livelihood. Right?
No, it's not a scrollbar. It's the sort of 'lozenge' design you get on iPhones and, these days, Android. There is no bar at all, only the little lozenge that on a regular scrollbar is the position indicator. The key realization that whoever actually invented this had is that a scrollbar is designed for direct interaction; on smartphones no-one scrolls by poking the scrollbar, they scroll by swiping. So you don't need most of the regular scrollbar design at all - you don't need the bar or the up/down arrows. All you need is something that indicates position in the document when the user is scrolling. So the lozenge appears when you're scrolling to indicate position within the document; when you stop scrolling it goes away again.
Can you find any reference to such a design prior to 2007? I had a quick look around when I read about this yesterday and couldn't find any. I suspect it's actually true that someone at Apple _did_ come up with the idea of an auto-hiding scroll widget without the bar.
iOS did it first, Android copied it in 2.3. So, no, not prior art.
Newspapers - also usually quite good at attribution...
Damn it, Google, could you please stick to being consistently evil or consistently good? This constant flip-flopping just leaves everyone unsure whether to get out the ticker tape or the flaming torches.
It's only Slashdot where the organization's name - the ITU - is inevitably prefixed by 'the UN's', or something similar. The ITU pre-dates the UN and was simply brought into the UN's general umbrella because that's a logical thing to do with an international standard-setting organization. Slashdot is being rather effectively manipulated by people who, for whatever reason, want to back up the FCC's scaremongering about the ITU's alleged 'takeover of the internet' (for which the only evidence appears to be...allegations by the FCC.)
Congratulations on getting your story about how awesome you are on Slashdot. I am not going to answer any of your questions because it's clear that wasn't your goal anyway.
"ok, first define common sense"
Oh, that's simple. Common sense: rarely either.
(That's not original, but I don't know to whom it should be attributed, sorry...)
No, they can't, as the Obamacare decision cited as one vital point in its characterization of the penalty as a 'tax' that it wasn't so high as to make paying it an unreasonable option. i.e., if the penalty had been so high that it wouldn't have been practical for people to pay it, it wouldn't have been constitutional.
"I can only assume you must be making some kind of ironic joke."
Congratulations, you avoid a whoosh by | | this much. At least three other respondents...not so much.
In shape, but not in detail. There is a vast difference between a society where the richest are 100 times poorer than the poorest, and one where the richest are 100,000 times richer.
"If the Ecuadorians fail to grant Assange political asylum, which is a possibility, will he be arrested by Metropolitan Police, and sent to Sweden to stand trial for two alleged counts of 'rape?' "
Why the scare quotes around rape? And why 'alleged'? The counts are most definitely of rape, and they - the _counts_ definitely exist. He faces trial on two counts of rape. The trial will determine what actions actually took place - i.e. whether the actions *alleged* to have taken place by the police did in fact happen - and whether they meet the legal definition of rape. It's the actions that are alleged, not the charges, and there is no need for the scare quotes.
"When they can force you to buy something from a private company, game over."
The irony is that the judgment (Roberts' opinion) says precisely that the government can't do that, and the ACA was upheld only because it doesn't, strictly speaking, work: it's constitutional because it doesn't really _force_ you to buy health insurance. On the contrary, it only penalizes you fairly weakly if you don't. Roberts notes that the only consequences to not buying health insurance are that you are required to pay a reasonably small amount to the IRS. Not buying health insurance won't be a criminal offence and has no regulatory consequences beyond the payment to the IRS. He also specifically notes that the amount of the payment isn't actually enough that paying it isn't a reasonable option. In other words, if you're absolutely determined not to buy health insurance - you can. You just have to pay a moderate tax. As Roberts wrote:
"Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax. The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy health insurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penalties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation...None of this is to say that payment is not intended to induce the purchase of health insurance. But the mandate need not be read to declare that failing to do so is unlawful. Neither the Affordable Care Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. And Congress’s choice of language—stating that individuals “shall” obtain insurance or pay a “penalty”—does not require reading 5000A as punishing unlawful conduct. It may also be read as imposing a tax on those who go without insurance."
In practice the ACA probably will work, because if you have a choice of paying money and getting something (health insurance) or paying money and getting nothing (penalty/tax), you're going to go with the 'pay money and get something' option. But it's important to note the implicit restrictions on the government in Roberts' opinion.
Try reading the article, rather than the summary. It's not a bunch of Apple employees complaining they're not being paid enough. It's a lot more nuanced (and interesting).
Comparing it to what you earned two decades ago, as other repliers have said, is absurd. The appropriate comparison is 'similar jobs at the present time'. It seems to be true that $12/hr isn't a terrible starting wage in retail, though, and the story is really just spinning it. Certainly where I live, that's a fairly normal retail wage.
"Madefire, a new startup in Emeryville, CA, is working to change that with the release today of its new iPad reader and comic-book authoring tool"
Translation: this is a well-executed publicity piece masquerading as news.
"This century needs its new creations and its new myths and legacies,' says chief creative officer Liam Sharp"
Translation: we couldn't afford any licenses.
General advice: read https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2012-June/168684.html .
It covers just about every objection raised here, and in general why things aren't as easy as some commenters seem to think.
And just to make the point everywhere people may see it - this _only_ affects updates via the graphical updater. If you want to keep updating on the fly with yum, you can. Nothing will stop you.