Because copyright is a human invention designed to encourage creative work by protecting what is otherwise easily copied and transferred around. That copyright protects the creator from unauthorized reproduction of his creation for a long enough period of time to allow him to recapture his investment. Once that period of time ends, he no longer has such protections and whether he likes it or not, his goods become public domain. He has plenty of time to both enjoy profit from his creation, and time to create something new which could subsequently be protected for another period of time.
It was never intended to grant a creator indefinite immunity from reproduction of his creation. Very few individuals would either a) care to have their tax money spent defending greed, or b) be held hostage to someone who wants to rest on his laurels and have his publicly granted copyright used to allow him to become useless to society indefinitely. What we giveth as a society, we also taketh away, copyrights and patents are two such things.
Now if you want to hate on Obama, you could argue that this supercomputer will be designed by indentured servants from India, using components made in Malaysia, and assembled in China. And it will likely be true.
But, you can just call him names too, that's good.
Throwing things, including boogers, off tall buildings is a crime in many places for this reason. I don't imagine a booger could hurt someone, no matter how it lands, but I think a BB would. My calculations suggest a standard BB would land at around 20mph, assuming it was fired straight up. However if you were firing at say, a 45 degree angle to hit that drone, it's not clear to me that terminal velocity would be the dominant threat and someone could be seriously hurt.
There are plenty of stories of hunters talking about being rained on my falling bird shot, and they definitely felt it. It's a ridiculous and unnecessary risk you shouldn't do it in a residential neighborhood. Call the damn cops, if it's a crime they'll deal with it.
So you fire projectiles into the air, they reach a certain height, and then drop like rocks onto the ground below. Now perhaps the individual pellets are relatively light, and perhaps their terminal velocity is relatively low, I would argue that there still exists some danger for personal injury or property damage wherever they land. You could still poke an eye out, ruin the neighbors flower bed, or otherwise just be destructive. To me that's still an irresponsible criminal offense, and you should be held accountable for the action.
Unless you can show that there actually was no danger to people or property, and you knew that at the time of firing. Which short of being some form of android or having very specific knowledge ahead of time, is not easy to do. Letting people shoot guns randomly in residential neighborhoods strikes me as a reasonable restriction on weapons, and those that aren't able to control themselves should be deprived of said weapons.
You're a bunch of idiots, but I love you. Thanks for taking that early install bug bullet for me. I'll wait a couple of weeks minimum before I do any installs.
I disagree, I think if you can calculate the area where the shot will land, accounting for wind and some unpredictable degree of scatter in the shot, and be sure that the area is clear of people or property, you should be able to shoot down a drone that flies over your backyard.
I'm sure this man did that first, of course and I look forward to his defense so that I may champion his cause.
He's probably in greater danger of being killed where he is. We probably won't kill him if he returns home, but we might kill him over there and pin it on Putin or some Russian mafia issue. In fact, should he return, he'll probably not be thrown in the deepest, darkest gitmo because he's too well known and someone will keep his name in the papers.
But the odds of him getting a fair trial are 0, he pissed off a lot of the wrong sorts of people, and failed to get those people removed from their jobs. Any "justice" he faces here will be of the miscarriage variety.
, NFC hasn't been used much, but I see that changing
It's a catch 22, if people don't want to use it and make noise for it, it won't be on phones. If it's not on phones vendors aren't going to justify replacing their POS equipment, or losing all the private information they're stealing from customer CC's, and will keep the status quo.
I really want NFC, Apple Pay works great in the 3 places I visit that accept it. But not enough people are complaining in the right places (i.e. publically, loudly) and so we're having to wait while competing chains try to agree on a standard to suitably steal private information from their customers, for another 10 years.
Android runs fine IFF you get a Google Nexus phone, AND don't go through Verizon or AT&T and have their malware installed. I wouldn't buy anything else if they paid ME money, it's gotten that bad. But if you can get over the stickershock and buy a nexus and add a plan, then it's pretty good.
The delusion amongst many academics, that students enroll in programs for any reason but to cash out and make money, continues unabated. We are still subjecting people who are paying an awful lot of money to general ed requirements, when advanced and focused trade schools would probably be the right solution for the the majority of applicants. Academia is a calling, one that requires either extreme dedication or a trust fund to hear.
...are people who aren't likely to be the ones who trigger some form of global genocide.
Does anyone really expect governments will obey these laws? Would there be a way for more than a handful of tightly controlled people to even know until its too late? The pieces are very separable, they can be assembled by a relatively small number of people. It's not at all like a nuclear bomb, which always will look like a nuclear bomb, and quite a few people have to know they're designing and testing a device capable of nuclear explosions.
Who cares? Are that many geeks worn down by the brutal requirement to wear something slightly more formal than gym clothes?
I'd call having to pay for dry cleaning a pay cut. Dress codes help only the fashion industry, otherwise i's the cheapest thing that covers the naughty bits.
HP has been on that slow train to MBA city for years now. I doubt there's anyone left that would object to a dress code, they've all moved on to successful technology companies instead.
Unless the API is very low level, and a lot of black box between API and end user application needs to be filled in by the community. And perhaps that black box might be more than one black box, for various industries. It sounds like they don't want to write those black boxes (maybe don't even understand them) and what customers to write open source implementations around their API. OpenGL is a nice API that's apparently way too low level for say, many game development companies to directly target, and most of them seem to use Unity/UE etc. and are just fine fitting within those frameworks.
Of course, if a community sees the need there, they're not going to be entirely pleased with building around a single, low level API that they have minimal control over and which may be used to extort them years later after investing a lot of work. I personally have very little trust about corporate stewardship of anything at all.
Football, basketball, soccer, hockey... all those are games. The day professional basketball/soccer players stop bouncing/kicking balls and get "real jobs", that day you can ask the same from professional videogame players.
I hope this day comes. All of these "sports", while individually fun to play in to some degree, stop being fun when there's money and spectators involved. I don't know how anyone can watch so-and-so pratfall to draw a yellow card, or billy joe step in front of a ball to get on a base, etc. etc. just to "win". This same gamesmanship has turned video games of almost every variety into a circus show.
The only way to kill it all dead is not to watch, buy the merchandise or otherwise pay money into the system.
If she were of a stronger moral character she would not be running for president, nor would she be capable of winning should she have tried. If she were not running for president, this issue would have dropped years ago. She's too powerful to prosecute, the best they can do is try to drag her through the mud like they did her hubby.
You wouldn't believe the amount of porn I find on 127.0.0.1. Don't they know kids use the internet? What if some kid went there and saw, and I quote directly "Belt-sanders and Geese, Teen, Facial, Fetish"? Google really needs to lock this down.
I'm probably not going to be interested in any videos that target my 90 year old Two-Spirit facebook avatar, but it will make for some fun stares when I check facebook while waiting for the kids to exhaust themselves in the local jump-o-rama
...distracting that critical thinking with irrelevant asides...
That's a flat-out idiotic comment.
First made first my by history professor in freshman year in college. She was a woman. She predicted Scotland would try for independence one day in my lifetime (and we laughed), and that Russia would once again become a talked about threat, in addition to a number of other things. This was 20 years ago. She seemed pretty smart, but she wasn't the type to suffer idiocy.
Talking about two housewives in a company that failed before it started is a feel-good story at best, a lame attempt at social justice at worst.
The company was highly successful at the time, went public, and years later failed after the IBM/DOS combination came to dominate. Yet because the company was founded by two "housewives", you deny its success and importance.
Or, because housewives was the headline term, and the subject of the article, thus it was brought in to the discussion by the author. If this was about how influential Vector Graphics was, the title might have read "Vector Graphic - The Influential PC Vendor You Never Heard Of" or something along those lines. Clearly however, this article is about two housewives and their failed start-up.
Absolutely nothing in the article substantiates your claim that Vector Graphics was at all relevant to the PC industry other than an ability to get headlines and make itself known. It failed in every way that marked the success of the PC, was defeated in the PC market by Apple and was eliminated entirely by the IBM PC. It's one of many, many companies that had a brief moment in the sun and disappeared. This article isn't about that, it's about the two housewives who ran it and the ensuing drama of the 70s tech biz. It's entire value is "hey look what these women almost did", you could say the same about countless people in countless businesses, the only thing unusual is that it's two women, particularly two housewives. That doesn't make it newsworthy for most people, particularly if you see no reason why housewives couldn't be successful. It's more useful to people who somehow think they can't.
Recruiters find applications and refer them, someone internally would normally phone screen the applicant to ensure the plane ticket, hotel stay and time investment is justified.
I've never gone straight from recruiter to on-site interview unless the job was in the same town and the company was very small.
. Someone above them has to either be actively allowing them bring people back in who have already been rejected three times before or they're just so disorganized they don't keep records on that kind of thing.
It's weird to me, because most companies have on their application "Have you ever interviewed at before? If so, list dates." Normally an HR recruiter will ask those things on the phone, or at least make you fill it out on the application before inviting you out.
Slashdot Mirror
Because copyright is a human invention designed to encourage creative work by protecting what is otherwise easily copied and transferred around. That copyright protects the creator from unauthorized reproduction of his creation for a long enough period of time to allow him to recapture his investment. Once that period of time ends, he no longer has such protections and whether he likes it or not, his goods become public domain. He has plenty of time to both enjoy profit from his creation, and time to create something new which could subsequently be protected for another period of time.
It was never intended to grant a creator indefinite immunity from reproduction of his creation. Very few individuals would either a) care to have their tax money spent defending greed, or b) be held hostage to someone who wants to rest on his laurels and have his publicly granted copyright used to allow him to become useless to society indefinitely. What we giveth as a society, we also taketh away, copyrights and patents are two such things.
Now if you want to hate on Obama, you could argue that this supercomputer will be designed by indentured servants from India, using components made in Malaysia, and assembled in China. And it will likely be true.
But, you can just call him names too, that's good.
Throwing things, including boogers, off tall buildings is a crime in many places for this reason. I don't imagine a booger could hurt someone, no matter how it lands, but I think a BB would. My calculations suggest a standard BB would land at around 20mph, assuming it was fired straight up. However if you were firing at say, a 45 degree angle to hit that drone, it's not clear to me that terminal velocity would be the dominant threat and someone could be seriously hurt.
There are plenty of stories of hunters talking about being rained on my falling bird shot, and they definitely felt it. It's a ridiculous and unnecessary risk you shouldn't do it in a residential neighborhood. Call the damn cops, if it's a crime they'll deal with it.
Incorrect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
These were actual bullets, not bird shot. However I believe bird shot would still fall with enough momentum to cause damage.
So you fire projectiles into the air, they reach a certain height, and then drop like rocks onto the ground below. Now perhaps the individual pellets are relatively light, and perhaps their terminal velocity is relatively low, I would argue that there still exists some danger for personal injury or property damage wherever they land. You could still poke an eye out, ruin the neighbors flower bed, or otherwise just be destructive. To me that's still an irresponsible criminal offense, and you should be held accountable for the action.
Unless you can show that there actually was no danger to people or property, and you knew that at the time of firing. Which short of being some form of android or having very specific knowledge ahead of time, is not easy to do. Letting people shoot guns randomly in residential neighborhoods strikes me as a reasonable restriction on weapons, and those that aren't able to control themselves should be deprived of said weapons.
You're a bunch of idiots, but I love you. Thanks for taking that early install bug bullet for me. I'll wait a couple of weeks minimum before I do any installs.
I too will wait for the first service pack.
(Yes, I know)
I disagree, I think if you can calculate the area where the shot will land, accounting for wind and some unpredictable degree of scatter in the shot, and be sure that the area is clear of people or property, you should be able to shoot down a drone that flies over your backyard.
I'm sure this man did that first, of course and I look forward to his defense so that I may champion his cause.
Let us kill you.
He's probably in greater danger of being killed where he is. We probably won't kill him if he returns home, but we might kill him over there and pin it on Putin or some Russian mafia issue. In fact, should he return, he'll probably not be thrown in the deepest, darkest gitmo because he's too well known and someone will keep his name in the papers.
But the odds of him getting a fair trial are 0, he pissed off a lot of the wrong sorts of people, and failed to get those people removed from their jobs. Any "justice" he faces here will be of the miscarriage variety.
, NFC hasn't been used much, but I see that changing
It's a catch 22, if people don't want to use it and make noise for it, it won't be on phones. If it's not on phones vendors aren't going to justify replacing their POS equipment, or losing all the private information they're stealing from customer CC's, and will keep the status quo.
I really want NFC, Apple Pay works great in the 3 places I visit that accept it. But not enough people are complaining in the right places (i.e. publically, loudly) and so we're having to wait while competing chains try to agree on a standard to suitably steal private information from their customers, for another 10 years.
Android runs fine IFF you get a Google Nexus phone, AND don't go through Verizon or AT&T and have their malware installed. I wouldn't buy anything else if they paid ME money, it's gotten that bad. But if you can get over the stickershock and buy a nexus and add a plan, then it's pretty good.
The delusion amongst many academics, that students enroll in programs for any reason but to cash out and make money, continues unabated. We are still subjecting people who are paying an awful lot of money to general ed requirements, when advanced and focused trade schools would probably be the right solution for the the majority of applicants. Academia is a calling, one that requires either extreme dedication or a trust fund to hear.
...are people who aren't likely to be the ones who trigger some form of global genocide.
Does anyone really expect governments will obey these laws? Would there be a way for more than a handful of tightly controlled people to even know until its too late? The pieces are very separable, they can be assembled by a relatively small number of people. It's not at all like a nuclear bomb, which always will look like a nuclear bomb, and quite a few people have to know they're designing and testing a device capable of nuclear explosions.
Who cares? Are that many geeks worn down by the brutal requirement to wear something slightly more formal than gym clothes?
I'd call having to pay for dry cleaning a pay cut. Dress codes help only the fashion industry, otherwise i's the cheapest thing that covers the naughty bits.
HP has been on that slow train to MBA city for years now. I doubt there's anyone left that would object to a dress code, they've all moved on to successful technology companies instead.
Unless the API is very low level, and a lot of black box between API and end user application needs to be filled in by the community. And perhaps that black box might be more than one black box, for various industries. It sounds like they don't want to write those black boxes (maybe don't even understand them) and what customers to write open source implementations around their API. OpenGL is a nice API that's apparently way too low level for say, many game development companies to directly target, and most of them seem to use Unity/UE etc. and are just fine fitting within those frameworks.
Of course, if a community sees the need there, they're not going to be entirely pleased with building around a single, low level API that they have minimal control over and which may be used to extort them years later after investing a lot of work. I personally have very little trust about corporate stewardship of anything at all.
Football, basketball, soccer, hockey... all those are games. The day professional basketball/soccer players stop bouncing/kicking balls and get "real jobs", that day you can ask the same from professional videogame players.
I hope this day comes. All of these "sports", while individually fun to play in to some degree, stop being fun when there's money and spectators involved. I don't know how anyone can watch so-and-so pratfall to draw a yellow card, or billy joe step in front of a ball to get on a base, etc. etc. just to "win". This same gamesmanship has turned video games of almost every variety into a circus show.
The only way to kill it all dead is not to watch, buy the merchandise or otherwise pay money into the system.
If she were of a stronger moral character she would not be running for president, nor would she be capable of winning should she have tried. If she were not running for president, this issue would have dropped years ago. She's too powerful to prosecute, the best they can do is try to drag her through the mud like they did her hubby.
No, the trend is they ask you how much you are currently making, and offer you a bit more if you get the job.
Holy Crap! You just unearthed the dialog from the next "Under The Dome" episode!
You wouldn't believe the amount of porn I find on 127.0.0.1. Don't they know kids use the internet? What if some kid went there and saw, and I quote directly "Belt-sanders and Geese, Teen, Facial, Fetish"? Google really needs to lock this down.
I'm probably not going to be interested in any videos that target my 90 year old Two-Spirit facebook avatar, but it will make for some fun stares when I check facebook while waiting for the kids to exhaust themselves in the local jump-o-rama
Gamers gonna game.
...distracting that critical thinking with irrelevant asides...
That's a flat-out idiotic comment.
First made first my by history professor in freshman year in college. She was a woman. She predicted Scotland would try for independence one day in my lifetime (and we laughed), and that Russia would once again become a talked about threat, in addition to a number of other things. This was 20 years ago. She seemed pretty smart, but she wasn't the type to suffer idiocy.
Talking about two housewives in a company that failed before it started is a feel-good story at best, a lame attempt at social justice at worst.
The company was highly successful at the time, went public, and years later failed after the IBM/DOS combination came to dominate. Yet because the company was founded by two "housewives", you deny its success and importance.
Or, because housewives was the headline term, and the subject of the article, thus it was brought in to the discussion by the author. If this was about how influential Vector Graphics was, the title might have read "Vector Graphic - The Influential PC Vendor You Never Heard Of" or something along those lines. Clearly however, this article is about two housewives and their failed start-up.
Absolutely nothing in the article substantiates your claim that Vector Graphics was at all relevant to the PC industry other than an ability to get headlines and make itself known. It failed in every way that marked the success of the PC, was defeated in the PC market by Apple and was eliminated entirely by the IBM PC. It's one of many, many companies that had a brief moment in the sun and disappeared. This article isn't about that, it's about the two housewives who ran it and the ensuing drama of the 70s tech biz. It's entire value is "hey look what these women almost did", you could say the same about countless people in countless businesses, the only thing unusual is that it's two women, particularly two housewives. That doesn't make it newsworthy for most people, particularly if you see no reason why housewives couldn't be successful. It's more useful to people who somehow think they can't.
Recruiters find applications and refer them, someone internally would normally phone screen the applicant to ensure the plane ticket, hotel stay and time investment is justified.
I've never gone straight from recruiter to on-site interview unless the job was in the same town and the company was very small.
. Someone above them has to either be actively allowing them bring people back in who have already been rejected three times before or they're just so disorganized they don't keep records on that kind of thing.
It's weird to me, because most companies have on their application "Have you ever interviewed at before? If so, list dates." Normally an HR recruiter will ask those things on the phone, or at least make you fill it out on the application before inviting you out.