It is sad that people don't believe in marriage anymore
I disagree. I believe it's sad people don't believe in commitment anymore. I don't believe in marriage, but that's only because I don't need a piece of paper to prove I'm committed to the person I've been with for half my life (and if it's not for the rest of my life, it won't be for my lack of trying).
Not entirely true, but common enough that it may as well be. I've seen a couple amicable divorces, but they are not the norm as far as has been my experience.
I wouldn't have considered combining them in the first place. In my situation, all our data is separate. The shared stuff can easily be copied, and the backups are irrelevant. I'm actually having a hard time understanding the specifics of why this is difficult in the case of the submitter.
I mean, I can understand the issue with websites. Having a hosting space shared between two people, especially two technical people who actually actively use the domain. Unless it's shared in a business sense though, it just means one person is going to have to get another domain and move their data to it. Changing email sucks, but it's going to be no more ugly than any other part of an ugly divorce...
Yeah, I thought I was done with floppies until last year when I ended up needing one for a BIOS update on a server. I don't necessarily dislike floppy drives; I dislike floppy disks. Damn things go bad if you so much as look at them wrong...
I have to say, if I was one of the farmers driven out of my life's investment and livelihood, I would more than likely end up being charged with the murder of as many of their executives as I could take out before being caught.
I understood it that way too. I just don't necessarily agree with it. It all depends on your point of view whether gameplay is being "sacrificed" to story in any given instance. There are some cases where more people agree than not that it is happening, but there are also cases where there are simply legitimate differences of opinion on which should be preferable in a certain circumstance where a specific type of game mechanic conflicts with a story element where one must be given up to make the other work.
even more careful slashdotters avoid the use of capital letters as the increase in mass from the extra black can cause the danger zone to increase in size a great deal
At this point though, Apple's major benefit is the incredible market inertia they possess. Windows is not necessarily the best technically, but the resistance to change is pretty high. People use them because people use them. It may sound trite, but it's also true to a very large extent. Apple is likely to win for the same reason Microsoft continues to win. What gave them their start was different for pretty much all parties, but what allows them to continue to dominate a market sector is essentially the same.
That Apple has such a large installed base of iProducts makes it very hard to compete with them, regardless of their future actions. Just look at the time, money, and environment changes required to unseat RIM as top smartphone provider, despite the differences between their platforms. This is not to say either is better, but that they serve different market segments in different ways but RIM was still able to hang onto large numbers of people who would have been better served by Apple. They are also now losing people who probably are better served by RIM, but the inertia is changed so radically at this point that RIM no longer holds the advantage.
I say all of this as a fan of RIM, and a non-fan of Apple. It's just how markets work. A free and open system will not necessarily triumph given the same features. Only if it can overcome the inertia of the dominant installed base(s) will it ever have the opportunity to "win."
As far as I'm aware, a publicized description of a process or idea in any form constitutes prior art, even if it was never intended to be used in a commercial production capacity.
Unfortunately, too many people are too invested in their own opinion of what's "good." As a result, we get people who are willing to argue to the death that A is better than B, when both can be blended or excluded in a number of proportions and still turn out to be great.
That's not paranoia. Almost any commercial machine will be equipped with a hard drive, which is used to store print jobs (since the unit's RAM usually isn't large enough to trust that it can hold the entire print queue when the machine is constantly busy). Many only remove old jobs only as-needed for space requirements, so those images could be there for a long time. There have been a number of reported incidents of companies not wiping off-lease or surplus drives from their printers, and having that data wind up in third-party hands.
Eventually word got out that other customers and techs were shorting out their RMAed RAID cards by not installing its cache memory battery in the proper (but critical) order.
That's a serious engineering fail if they don't include a keyed connector and|or have polarity protection built in.
Actually, even if they obtain them via illegal means, they're still not committing a crime by reading them. The only crime would be in how they were obtained. Again, only for people who do not already possess a security clearance, as they can be legally liable for reading something they know (or suspect) to be outside their clearance level.
This is true only if you have a security clearance or ever want to get one. People without them are under no legal compulsion to refrain from reading classified documents unless that person was also directly complicit in obtaining them via illegal means.
Alright, so another case of incompetence at some level then. If there is not a person involved who is capable of understanding the distinctions of the original language, someone in the chain is guilty of gross negligence. It doesn't really matter how the translation was performed; someone is incompetent to have jumped to this conclusion from the terms supplied in the article. Maybe the article is biased, or flat-out incorrect, but in order to comment at all certain assumptions must be made. Mine are to take the article at face value unless and until I have a reason to do otherwise.
I wasn't arguing the point was correct or incorrect, as I don't really care whether Apple started the process last year or not.
I was simply clarifying what I understood the post to be saying. I should have used "hadn't" rather than "haven't," though; that mistake was entirely mine.
It also wasn't bashing, at least not my post. There are any number of reasons why they could have legitimately decided not to submit it for compliance testing until last year. What I was replying to appeared to be a sarcastic attempt to denigrate the poster above as believing Apple hadn't done it as a result of insufficient cash (Will $40 billion cover it?), when it is obvious to anyone even passingly familiar with Apple that their finances are not limiting their capacity to undertake this course of action.
Your assumption that those that disagree with you are "untrained" or otherwise unknowledgeable is the first fatal flaw in your position.
Find me someone who is familiar with automatic weapons in military capacity who claims there is zero practical use for them in insurgent combat, then get back to me. I never claimed a specific combat capacity they were useful in, only that A) firearms are useful in insurgent combat, B) it is possible to modify semi-autos, and C) that autos do actually have practical use. Anything past that is an unfounded assumption which exceeds what I actually said. Unless you disagree with the specific points in A, B, or C, we're done here. If you're going to disagree with C, it'd better include refutation of the entirety of the benefits of auto use throughout military history.
Slashdot Mirror
It is sad that people don't believe in marriage anymore
I disagree. I believe it's sad people don't believe in commitment anymore. I don't believe in marriage, but that's only because I don't need a piece of paper to prove I'm committed to the person I've been with for half my life (and if it's not for the rest of my life, it won't be for my lack of trying).
Mature people understand that things change, people change, and they can grow apart through no fault of anyone.
Unfortunately, proceedings where both parties fit that definition of "mature" are a pretty small percentage of all divorces.
it's much less satisfying than burning paper copies
Not if you burn the DVDs using thermite...
Not entirely true, but common enough that it may as well be. I've seen a couple amicable divorces, but they are not the norm as far as has been my experience.
I wouldn't have considered combining them in the first place. In my situation, all our data is separate. The shared stuff can easily be copied, and the backups are irrelevant. I'm actually having a hard time understanding the specifics of why this is difficult in the case of the submitter.
I mean, I can understand the issue with websites. Having a hosting space shared between two people, especially two technical people who actually actively use the domain. Unless it's shared in a business sense though, it just means one person is going to have to get another domain and move their data to it. Changing email sucks, but it's going to be no more ugly than any other part of an ugly divorce...
Yeah, I thought I was done with floppies until last year when I ended up needing one for a BIOS update on a server. I don't necessarily dislike floppy drives; I dislike floppy disks. Damn things go bad if you so much as look at them wrong...
That's fine, just so long as the editor who allowed it to be abbreviated is sacked.
Oh, how I wish I had mod points...
Thunder Dome justice would be far more entertaining to watch though.
It's way easier than that. All they need is to get one farmer in a region to use their seed, and the wind does the rest.
I have to say, if I was one of the farmers driven out of my life's investment and livelihood, I would more than likely end up being charged with the murder of as many of their executives as I could take out before being caught.
I apologize in advance for the horrible run-on sentence.
I understood it that way too. I just don't necessarily agree with it. It all depends on your point of view whether gameplay is being "sacrificed" to story in any given instance. There are some cases where more people agree than not that it is happening, but there are also cases where there are simply legitimate differences of opinion on which should be preferable in a certain circumstance where a specific type of game mechanic conflicts with a story element where one must be given up to make the other work.
even more careful slashdotters avoid the use of capital letters as the increase in mass from the extra black can cause the danger zone to increase in size a great deal
At this point though, Apple's major benefit is the incredible market inertia they possess. Windows is not necessarily the best technically, but the resistance to change is pretty high. People use them because people use them. It may sound trite, but it's also true to a very large extent. Apple is likely to win for the same reason Microsoft continues to win. What gave them their start was different for pretty much all parties, but what allows them to continue to dominate a market sector is essentially the same.
That Apple has such a large installed base of iProducts makes it very hard to compete with them, regardless of their future actions. Just look at the time, money, and environment changes required to unseat RIM as top smartphone provider, despite the differences between their platforms. This is not to say either is better, but that they serve different market segments in different ways but RIM was still able to hang onto large numbers of people who would have been better served by Apple. They are also now losing people who probably are better served by RIM, but the inertia is changed so radically at this point that RIM no longer holds the advantage.
I say all of this as a fan of RIM, and a non-fan of Apple. It's just how markets work. A free and open system will not necessarily triumph given the same features. Only if it can overcome the inertia of the dominant installed base(s) will it ever have the opportunity to "win."
As far as I'm aware, a publicized description of a process or idea in any form constitutes prior art, even if it was never intended to be used in a commercial production capacity.
It's entirely possible I'm wrong though.
This.
Unfortunately, too many people are too invested in their own opinion of what's "good." As a result, we get people who are willing to argue to the death that A is better than B, when both can be blended or excluded in a number of proportions and still turn out to be great.
You'll get no disagreement from me on that point.
That's not paranoia. Almost any commercial machine will be equipped with a hard drive, which is used to store print jobs (since the unit's RAM usually isn't large enough to trust that it can hold the entire print queue when the machine is constantly busy). Many only remove old jobs only as-needed for space requirements, so those images could be there for a long time. There have been a number of reported incidents of companies not wiping off-lease or surplus drives from their printers, and having that data wind up in third-party hands.
Eventually word got out that other customers and techs were shorting out their RMAed RAID cards by not installing its cache memory battery in the proper (but critical) order.
That's a serious engineering fail if they don't include a keyed connector and|or have polarity protection built in.
Actually, even if they obtain them via illegal means, they're still not committing a crime by reading them. The only crime would be in how they were obtained. Again, only for people who do not already possess a security clearance, as they can be legally liable for reading something they know (or suspect) to be outside their clearance level.
This is true only if you have a security clearance or ever want to get one. People without them are under no legal compulsion to refrain from reading classified documents unless that person was also directly complicit in obtaining them via illegal means.
Alright, so another case of incompetence at some level then. If there is not a person involved who is capable of understanding the distinctions of the original language, someone in the chain is guilty of gross negligence. It doesn't really matter how the translation was performed; someone is incompetent to have jumped to this conclusion from the terms supplied in the article. Maybe the article is biased, or flat-out incorrect, but in order to comment at all certain assumptions must be made. Mine are to take the article at face value unless and until I have a reason to do otherwise.
I wasn't arguing the point was correct or incorrect, as I don't really care whether Apple started the process last year or not.
I was simply clarifying what I understood the post to be saying. I should have used "hadn't" rather than "haven't," though; that mistake was entirely mine.
It also wasn't bashing, at least not my post. There are any number of reasons why they could have legitimately decided not to submit it for compliance testing until last year. What I was replying to appeared to be a sarcastic attempt to denigrate the poster above as believing Apple hadn't done it as a result of insufficient cash (Will $40 billion cover it?), when it is obvious to anyone even passingly familiar with Apple that their finances are not limiting their capacity to undertake this course of action.
Your assumption that those that disagree with you are "untrained" or otherwise unknowledgeable is the first fatal flaw in your position.
Find me someone who is familiar with automatic weapons in military capacity who claims there is zero practical use for them in insurgent combat, then get back to me. I never claimed a specific combat capacity they were useful in, only that A) firearms are useful in insurgent combat, B) it is possible to modify semi-autos, and C) that autos do actually have practical use. Anything past that is an unfounded assumption which exceeds what I actually said. Unless you disagree with the specific points in A, B, or C, we're done here. If you're going to disagree with C, it'd better include refutation of the entirety of the benefits of auto use throughout military history.