True, but someone else added that to the meme, and he approved.
And the counter-meme mutated into even more useful forms. (As Cuckoo's Egg author Cliff Stoll once said to me: "Godwin's Law? Isn't that the law that states that once a discussion reaches a comparison to Nazis or Hitler, its usefulness is over?")
Looking at my computer right now, I have 11 programs running. 3 are OS, 3 are freeware, 3 I paid for, and 2 I 'acquired'.
If I need/want a program and can afford it, I'll buy it. If I can't afford it, I'll try and find an alternative that's free. If I can't do that, then I'll acquire it. Having got this far, I have already decided I can't buy it, so I'm not depriving them of a sale.
That, to me, is the justification I need to do it with a moderately clean conscience.
It's wrong, I know, but there is a big difference in my mind between losing something physical and losing something intangible. If I coded for a living, no doubt but I'd have your attitude.
It comes back to the point that by stealing the needle, you are depriving someone else the legitimate use of that needle.
If, however, I could make a copy of that needle, the bar to doing the wrong thing drops dramatically.
Grandparent:I think the stats posted elsewhere in this discussion are from larger sites with a less biased user base.
lone marauder:Microsoft is so pervasive that it has even turned rational thought upside down.
I don't agree with you there. The grandparent's quote makes sense as it's written.
I know you agree with the main point, as do I, but I'll continue anyway.
The line you quoted says that it's the site that you visit that makes you biased, not the fact that you use an alternative browser. the fact that the one follows from the other is irrelevent. In any case, using/. as an exaqmple, the last time I saw some stats IE was still in the majority. Probably from all the people browsing from work - as I am.
(The quality of my post in no way detracts from the point.)
I won't argue with you there, but you took issue with the wrong part of my post.
I was saying that coding specifically for Firefox is almost as bad as coding specifically for IE. It doesn't matter that it's a better browser. Wasn't it IE being a better browser than Netscape and people then coding specifically for it that caused all this trouble in the first place?
The whole point is that you don't code for a specific browser, even if it is the superior. You code for the standards, and all else should follow from that.
I'm not too concerned about real alarms, but if it's a false alarm, the person involved should definatly pay some of the cost. Not all, as having to pay something like GBP 80 000 would pretty much ruin a person, and that's too high a price for a mistake of this kind.
God no, don't give them EPIRBs or anything similar.
If you do, make sure the user pays for accidental or malicious activation.
Our Harbour Master had one of these that went off by mistake/curious son.
GBP 80 000 later, after 3 lifeboats, 1 helicopter and calls to the local RAF base (it was an ex RAF EPIRB, so the coastguard thought it might have been a missing plane) , the EPIRB was found - in a cupboard.
If a Harbour Master can do it, how many false alarms will there be when every Tom, Dick and Harry has one?
(Though that wasn't really a large amount when compared to the GBP 750 000 a farmer cost when he spilt his load of fertilizer in the high street, and closed off the town for 6 hours.)
If someone else comes along at the end of the auction, sees the item and is prepared to pay $95, then you have to top that or lose the item.
It's the way it works. Just because something has been at $50 so far doesn't mean it'll sell for that.
If you think it's worth $50, then bid $50. If you think it's woth $50, but bid $100, and then someone else bids $95, you weren't 'trapped' into paying $95, you said you'd pay upto $100. You got it for less, so what's the fuss?
Except that if you patent something, you are preventing any third party from copying your invention, patenting it themselves, and then sueing you for infringing the patent.
Of course, you then have prior art with which to defend yourself, but it's going to be more expensive and less certain than patenting the product/procedure/function/word/bl**dy obvious thing in the first place.
Differential GPS (DGPS) uses a base station that knows exactly where it is. The station then compares its known position with that recieved from GPS, works out the offset, and then broadcasts the difference. A DGPS reciever can then add/subtract the offset from the position it obtains from GPS to find a much more precise location.
And you are thinking of Galileo. (Which has, though I'm not sure, just been neutered by the US)
The collective pitch control lever controls the collective pitch, or angle-of-attack, of the helicopter blades together, that is, equally throughout the 360 degree plane-of-rotation of the main rotor system. When the angle-of-attack is increased, the blade produces more lift.
The cyclic changes the pitch of the blades cyclically, causing the lift to vary across the plane of the rotor disk. This is how the pilot causes the rotor system to tilt, and the helicopter to move.
You can overclock your processor, RAM and video card. Assuming you do it properly and they still work otherwise, isn't that close enough to a free lunch?
Almost makes sense to be able to do the same thing to your hard drive.
Especially if they are all manufactured to the same specs, and then get rated during testing.
There aren't that many seperate capacity levels. 80 GB, 120 GB, 160 GB etc. Your 80GB drive might well have managed 110 GB, not passed at 120 GB, and so been rated at the lower capacity.
Or something like that.
I'm not saying that the method in the article is the way to go about it, merely that the general idea may have merit.
Slashdot Mirror
And the counter-meme mutated into even more useful forms. (As Cuckoo's Egg author Cliff Stoll once said to me: "Godwin's Law? Isn't that the law that states that once a discussion reaches a comparison to Nazis or Hitler, its usefulness is over?")
I try not to, but sometimes fail.
Looking at my computer right now, I have 11 programs running. 3 are OS, 3 are freeware, 3 I paid for, and 2 I 'acquired'.
If I need/want a program and can afford it, I'll buy it. If I can't afford it, I'll try and find an alternative that's free. If I can't do that, then I'll acquire it. Having got this far, I have already decided I can't buy it, so I'm not depriving them of a sale.
That, to me, is the justification I need to do it with a moderately clean conscience.
It's wrong, I know, but there is a big difference in my mind between losing something physical and losing something intangible. If I coded for a living, no doubt but I'd have your attitude.
It comes back to the point that by stealing the needle, you are depriving someone else the legitimate use of that needle. If, however, I could make a copy of that needle, the bar to doing the wrong thing drops dramatically.
Grandparent: I think the stats posted elsewhere in this discussion are from larger sites with a less biased user base.
lone marauder: Microsoft is so pervasive that it has even turned rational thought upside down.
I don't agree with you there. The grandparent's quote makes sense as it's written.
I know you agree with the main point, as do I, but I'll continue anyway.
The line you quoted says that it's the site that you visit that makes you biased, not the fact that you use an alternative browser. the fact that the one follows from the other is irrelevent. In any case, using /. as an exaqmple, the last time I saw some stats IE was still in the majority. Probably from all the people browsing from work - as I am.
(The quality of my post in no way detracts from the point.)
I won't argue with you there, but you took issue with the wrong part of my post.
I was saying that coding specifically for Firefox is almost as bad as coding specifically for IE. It doesn't matter that it's a better browser. Wasn't it IE being a better browser than Netscape and people then coding specifically for it that caused all this trouble in the first place?
What is the target audience of the program? If it's even remotly aimed at IT savy people, your stats will be far from representative.
55% sounds too good to be true.
The whole point is that you don't code for a specific browser, even if it is the superior. You code for the standards, and all else should follow from that.
Go and look at Snopes.
I'm not too concerned about real alarms, but if it's a false alarm, the person involved should definatly pay some of the cost. Not all, as having to pay something like GBP 80 000 would pretty much ruin a person, and that's too high a price for a mistake of this kind.
God no, don't give them EPIRBs or anything similar.
If you do, make sure the user pays for accidental or malicious activation.
Our Harbour Master had one of these that went off by mistake/curious son.
GBP 80 000 later, after 3 lifeboats, 1 helicopter and calls to the local RAF base (it was an ex RAF EPIRB, so the coastguard thought it might have been a missing plane) , the EPIRB was found - in a cupboard.
If a Harbour Master can do it, how many false alarms will there be when every Tom, Dick and Harry has one?
(Though that wasn't really a large amount when compared to the GBP 750 000 a farmer cost when he spilt his load of fertilizer in the high street, and closed off the town for 6 hours.)
So if you only want to pay $50, only bid $50.
If someone else comes along at the end of the auction, sees the item and is prepared to pay $95, then you have to top that or lose the item.
It's the way it works. Just because something has been at $50 so far doesn't mean it'll sell for that.
If you think it's worth $50, then bid $50. If you think it's woth $50, but bid $100, and then someone else bids $95, you weren't 'trapped' into paying $95, you said you'd pay upto $100. You got it for less, so what's the fuss?
I suppose Orwellian is just as apt a term for Unequal equality as Big Brother. But it took me a bit of thinking to remember Animal Farm.
Except that if you patent something, you are preventing any third party from copying your invention, patenting it themselves, and then sueing you for infringing the patent.
Of course, you then have prior art with which to defend yourself, but it's going to be more expensive and less certain than patenting the product/procedure/function/word/bl**dy obvious thing in the first place.
And you are thinking of Galileo. (Which has, though I'm not sure, just been neutered by the US)
I'm not sure if this is funny or insightfull.
And that's not funny.
I'm still not sure if that's a good or bad thing.
Glad to have been of help.
From the wikipedia:
The collective controls the height of the helicopter.
And at the end of all the downloads and patching, which was the more secure?
Just out of interest...
I'll wave the Jabber flag, along with 2 or 3 others I managed to get to use it.
As far as I'm aware, fraud protection is free over here in the UK.
You can overclock your processor, RAM and video card. Assuming you do it properly and they still work otherwise, isn't that close enough to a free lunch?
Almost makes sense to be able to do the same thing to your hard drive.
Especially if they are all manufactured to the same specs, and then get rated during testing.
There aren't that many seperate capacity levels. 80 GB, 120 GB, 160 GB etc. Your 80GB drive might well have managed 110 GB, not passed at 120 GB, and so been rated at the lower capacity.
Or something like that.
I'm not saying that the method in the article is the way to go about it, merely that the general idea may have merit.
My mistake, Khosian isn't a Bantu language.
If you mean the 'click' languages, they are part of the Khoisan language group, which is itself part of the Bantu family.
As are most of the sub-saharan languages.