"..patents is just that they are so severely broken.."
None of the core concepts under discussion here, save the form ideas take, would be unfamiliar to early Americans debating whether, for example, to align their laws with England's Statute of Anne. The big problem is industries have near infinite lifetimes compared to the human component, each of the latter born without the hundreds of years of historical memory required to form an informed opinion on the copyright issue. Corporations have the advantage of chipping away for generations at the tiniest flaw in legislation, if necessary cajoling and paying willing politicians of any era for the most bizarre favours - to be treated as individuals in law for example - to achieve their goals. Eventually a body of legal precedent so large is achieved that it threatens the subvert the foundations of the host society. Make no mistake, copyright industries want a world in which manufacturers and goverment cooperate to regulate the movement of information at the most minute level. They do it for the pocketbook but only an idiot or the hopeless naive don't foresee a future of the most horrible abuse.
Unless it's a company car I don't see how it's an 'employment matter'. "In only a very few places is political activity a protected category of speech" is becoming the general case. See: Free Speech Zones.
" Ok, we all know how the majority of Slashdot feels about Microsoft. It's not a positive feeling. I myself don't like them.
But please don't use this 60% figure as proof that Vista will suck. Because it doesn't necessarily mean that."
Ok, rant mode on. Who the fuck speaks in such a partonizing tone of voice in real life. Re-writing 60% of an already widly behind schedule product is an unmitigated disaster.
Universal untargeted surveillance is still surveillance. No manpower is involved until the machine algorithms determine which individuals to target. Bush has already made it clear in his belief the courts are irrelevant in determining who these targets are. How much further from the Constitution does your country need to travel before you realize it's nothing to do with hats?
Let me guess. In a previous life you air-brushed political figures who had fallen out of favour from portraits? Trotsky = OS 2, Kirov = Macintosh? That's one of the more interesting and sanitized takes on the era I've heard yet.
Line 1 of your first post claimed experts operate on brand bias. Yet this same bias caused the experts to place one JVC model top of the class and the other JVC model dead last, in perfect correlation with the measurements. Apparently we've dropped that approach and moved to cost. If you tip the tinfoil back far enough for a better view, every group placed the Pro model first, three as the stand-alone winner and two in conjunction with others. All placed the consumer JVC at or tied for bottom with the Brillian 720. The Brillian shows a total variation from A- to B and the consumer JVC from A- to B-. While a single point variation among six groups doesn't strike me as the work of The International, your mileage obviously varies. Widely.
Shall we try a third approach? Let's. The measurements, remember those? The expert viewing opinion correlated one-for-one with the technical analysis. That's staggering performance. I don't know them but I presume it's why they earned the title 'expert'. To imply they voted by cost suggests Alcan folds a little too tight.
There was no need to convince me further of your lack of reading comprehension, but since you insist. For your benefit then the line:
"The 'expert' brand bias caused them to unanimously rate JVC both first and last, $44K pro vs. $4k consumer monitor."
was obvious to most in response to your statement:
"Experts also go into these reviews with their own 'professional' bias against specific companies, models and brands while a lay-consumer, like myself, doesn't care if it's a Hitachi, RCA, Samsung or Sony."
The site's now Slashdotted, but my recollection is there was pretty close agreement across most models except for the one instance with the consumer JVC, rendering your 'disconnect' notion another fantasy and bolstering mine you simply have an issue with the concept of 'experts'.
You didn't read the article obviously. The 'expert' brand bias caused them to unanimously rate JVC both first and last, $44K pro vs. $4k consumer monitor. The rest of the post reads like little more than one long rant against the notions of 'excellency' or 'expert'.
"Clinton and a hostile, strongly-conservative Congress balanced the Federal budget. Left to his own devices, there's little evidence to suggest that Clinton would have managed to operate within the country's means."
No, but there's ample evidence to determine which of the two enforced the most restraint. That evidence begins in 2000 and continues today. The major change in variables was the removal of a Dem. President.
Re:For those of us who don't follow mozilla.org...
on
SeaMonkey 1.0 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
No. I realize it's three whole paragraphs down, but:
"The SeaMonkey project is a community-based project hosted at mozilla.org that emerged around Mozilla's suite codebase when the Mozilla Foundation announced it would discontinue further development of its suite product.
Ding ding! We have a winner. People are being trained to vote for Leaders, not civil servants. The gulf in expectations is huge. In the latter the Adminstration and government serves your needs, in the former they permit. It should take no more than a quiet afternoon at the library to convince that the new interpretation is not what the Founders of the American republic had in mind.
" No. He probably wants to get paid for work so he can eat, buy a house, and put his kids through school. "
False dichotomy. Michael Moore has gone on public record repeatedly supporting P2P sharing of his works between end users. What he doesn't support is a corporation making money from his works without permission, which the original intent of copyright was meant to cover. Mr. Moore apparently eats quite well.
What's implausible is the Sony executives responsible for distributing a hidden exploit aren't basking in the Guantanamo sun. Had this been Swedish or Thai teens you can bet your ass their faces would adorn newpapers worldwide and software giants decrying the vandalism.
Slashdot Mirror
None of the core concepts under discussion here, save the form ideas take, would be unfamiliar to early Americans debating whether, for example, to align their laws with England's Statute of Anne. The big problem is industries have near infinite lifetimes compared to the human component, each of the latter born without the hundreds of years of historical memory required to form an informed opinion on the copyright issue. Corporations have the advantage of chipping away for generations at the tiniest flaw in legislation, if necessary cajoling and paying willing politicians of any era for the most bizarre favours - to be treated as individuals in law for example - to achieve their goals. Eventually a body of legal precedent so large is achieved that it threatens the subvert the foundations of the host society. Make no mistake, copyright industries want a world in which manufacturers and goverment cooperate to regulate the movement of information at the most minute level. They do it for the pocketbook but only an idiot or the hopeless naive don't foresee a future of the most horrible abuse.
Unless it's a company car I don't see how it's an 'employment matter'. "In only a very few places is political activity a protected category of speech" is becoming the general case. See: Free Speech Zones.
It took me by surprise that in 2006 anyone could present this as an issue, especially among Slashdaot submitters! =D
You've obviously never seen Hustler.
Your definition of paranoid is lacking. There's enough smoke around Diebold to cure ham.
Ok, rant mode on. Who the fuck speaks in such a partonizing tone of voice in real life. Re-writing 60% of an already widly behind schedule product is an unmitigated disaster.
Like the Internet, as big a revolution as the printing press, which he initially dismissed? Or did you mean Microsoft Bob?
Universal untargeted surveillance is still surveillance. No manpower is involved until the machine algorithms determine which individuals to target. Bush has already made it clear in his belief the courts are irrelevant in determining who these targets are. How much further from the Constitution does your country need to travel before you realize it's nothing to do with hats?
Let me guess. In a previous life you air-brushed political figures who had fallen out of favour from portraits? Trotsky = OS 2, Kirov = Macintosh? That's one of the more interesting and sanitized takes on the era I've heard yet.
And the Shah of Iran, don't forget the all the help and support the US provided his regime.
Shall we try a third approach? Let's. The measurements, remember those? The expert viewing opinion correlated one-for-one with the technical analysis. That's staggering performance. I don't know them but I presume it's why they earned the title 'expert'. To imply they voted by cost suggests Alcan folds a little too tight.
"The 'expert' brand bias caused them to unanimously rate JVC both first and last, $44K pro vs. $4k consumer monitor."
was obvious to most in response to your statement:
"Experts also go into these reviews with their own 'professional' bias against specific companies, models and brands while a lay-consumer, like myself, doesn't care if it's a Hitachi, RCA, Samsung or Sony."
The site's now Slashdotted, but my recollection is there was pretty close agreement across most models except for the one instance with the consumer JVC, rendering your 'disconnect' notion another fantasy and bolstering mine you simply have an issue with the concept of 'experts'.
You didn't read the article obviously. The 'expert' brand bias caused them to unanimously rate JVC both first and last, $44K pro vs. $4k consumer monitor. The rest of the post reads like little more than one long rant against the notions of 'excellency' or 'expert'.
There, fixed that up for you.
No, but there's ample evidence to determine which of the two enforced the most restraint. That evidence begins in 2000 and continues today. The major change in variables was the removal of a Dem. President.
"The SeaMonkey project is a community-based project hosted at mozilla.org that emerged around Mozilla's suite codebase when the Mozilla Foundation announced it would discontinue further development of its suite product.
Half would argue to criminalize inhaling, the other half exhaling.
Ding ding! We have a winner. People are being trained to vote for Leaders, not civil servants. The gulf in expectations is huge. In the latter the Adminstration and government serves your needs, in the former they permit. It should take no more than a quiet afternoon at the library to convince that the new interpretation is not what the Founders of the American republic had in mind.
Welcome to Slashdot. :)
False dichotomy. Michael Moore has gone on public record repeatedly supporting P2P sharing of his works between end users. What he doesn't support is a corporation making money from his works without permission, which the original intent of copyright was meant to cover. Mr. Moore apparently eats quite well.
Not as futile as complete capitulation, the only other viable alternative.
What's implausible is the Sony executives responsible for distributing a hidden exploit aren't basking in the Guantanamo sun. Had this been Swedish or Thai teens you can bet your ass their faces would adorn newpapers worldwide and software giants decrying the vandalism.
How true. The time's long past that conservatives championed citizen rights and fiscally responsible government. They smartened up. Stupid "liberals".
Ha ha. Works perfectly here. You must be on an XP desktop.
You're a renowned national museum? I this highschool?