My first university roommate played APP endlessly. Could have been worse (future roommate liked to drop the Minnelli New York, New York bombshell at 7 a.m.)..
And I thought the endless rendition of "Staring at the Sea" by a former roommate was unequaled torture! You win.
I was originally going to submit the story yesterday with the comment "how could they consider this patentable? We had windows with full 3D manipulation going on prior to 1991. We ran Patran via X11 and to the layman that would appear as a "super" browser window. It covered all aspects of any interactive patent by having full 2-way communication, visualization, and interaction. The only thing it didn't do was run over HTTP."
But it looks like common sense ruled and the jury did the right thing for once, even in Tyler.
Why... films? But seriously, film producers generally do more than merely put money down, and films require a lot more than a couple of people to produce, unless, of course, you're the guys that created Primer.
the issue is not as clear cut... If it were then...musicians and bands simply wouldn't use major record companies, they'd do it all themselves. Some do. But not the ones who have become household names. Surely that must tell us something?
That tells me that in the current climate, it's very difficult to get exposure unless one of the big distributors has a stake in it.
Take the Grateful Dead, for instance. They toured for years, had plenty of people go to their concerts, and sold lots and lots of records, tapes, and CDs. Do they get air play on the radio?
Another instance, this one more telling, is the airplay, or lack thereof, received by Ninch Inch Nails The Slip, in comparison to the previous Year Zero or With Teeth, both of which had a distributor. For those that like NIN, The Slip has several good songs on it, but received almost no airplay while similar songs on the previous 2 albums got overplayed into the dirt.
I too have done the DOM and Ajax coding in the "old" days, even before Prototype really took off. I'd have to agree that writing cross-browser Ajax code is trivially simple.
On the other hand, JQuery does have some appeal in making some things easier.
Actually, it's a combination of controller and firmware that seems important.
And super fast but exploding vs a little slower but reliable wins in the long run everytime. It's why I got the Intel, it was the only "stable" one at the time.
I've had a lot of experience with RAID over a long time, both in the enterprise and at home. I prefer software RAID 0 for home systems. I'm currently running a software RAID 0 stripe across 4 drives for roughly a TB of fast workspace space. The remainder of those 4 drives is used as normal storage, with a fifth for backing up that RAID 0 stripe. I no longer use any other RAID for the home. I don't have uptime requirements, which is all redundant arrays are good for anyways. I use another set of external drives to keep backups of the non RAID data.(Yes, that's a lot of drives and a lot of space, I haven't lost anything in over 15 years and a number of drive failures, not to mention that drives are cheap) My home system also uses that X25M for it's boot disk. It was a test, and it's passed. It's fast enough that while I may try a RAID 0 stripe set of SSDs for the system drive, I don't see the need at the moment.
In the enterprise, at this point, I wouldn't use anything other than hardware RAID10 where I needed performance, and RAID 1 elsewhere. Uptime is usually quite important. A good controller will actually use both disks in RAID 1 for reads and the striping can be either software or hardware, depending upon your layout and needs. These aren't the crappy cheap home controllers, and there usually is no performance hit for using hardware based RAID.
Ad yet my X25M, which came at a steep price, is still performing well 1.5 years later while several others I know have gone through several competing drives in the same period. Anecdotal, I know, but when I decided on a drive, the only one without the kind of failure stories my colleagues went through was the Intel drive.
Sometimes you do get what you pay for.
The question isn't so much about whether the embryo is human and alive (it's both in most cases) but whether that other organism, the woman it's in and you neglect to mention anywhere in your statements, should be subjugated (ie, forced) into 9 months of what is essentially slavery for another human.
That many women choose to carry their babies to full term and give birth is remarkable. If you're against abortion - great, don't have one. If you want to tell someone else they can't have one - here's a thought - take over whatever is left of the 9 month gestation period yourself and then the next 23 years of love and support to make that new human life a successful adult. (You didn't think it stopped at birth, high school, or age 18, did you?) If you aren't willing to go the full route - you have absolutely no say in what someone else decides, IMNSHO. Oh, and you wouldn't only be able to do this once, you'd have to do it along with every other control freak dumbass that decided other people shouldn't have full control and decision making powers over their own bodies every single time someone chooses not to carry to full term.
Personal encryption is not easy on a PC, but remarkably hard on common mobile devices. I still dont know of any easy to use system for supporting PGP on my iPad/iPhone, or even on Android. I do have an app that can decode PGP blobs, but it is such a painn having to copy and paste between the apps.
Why cant this be built in to the mail clients?
This is actually easier than you can imagine, provided you've worked in the space.
I was doing 2048bit PGP email encryption and signing back around 96 or so, until my employer banned it on work computers. (They were perfectly justified in doing so.)
Facebook especially, and Twitter maybe, are as bad as Google in tracking who you are, where you've been, and linking all sorts of information about you. Facebook also has a nice, nifty huge photo ID DB in hand, easily used to visually identify millions of people, all thanks to the ever helpful "tag this photo" system.
So no, you do not only tell us the parts you want known, you reveal much much more to Facebook, Google, and Twitter and their customers (who are not you, btw, you're the product)
The only way you avoid this is by engaging precisely in some of that activity described above as being "suspicious".
I also suppose my company and clients are "suspicious", since they force me, for some reason, to log into their systems via secure VPNs while I administer or deploy systems. I can't imagine why? And what about those outfits like Sony and Verisign? Oh wait, they both aren't that suspicious, hackers freely access their information.
In your example you could have had insurance/pay your bills in the first place, so its a non discussion related to the original topic. Try again with a rational argument if you want to continue. If not, then see ya.
And ill say the same thing i did to the last idiot. If you love socialism so much get the hell out of my country. You don't belong here.
"idiot says as idiot does" (paraphrased from Forrest Gump, brighter than you)
I drew up a logical chart of where we are and what the choices are. There are few things I agree with Bush on, especially his "you're either with us or against us" black and white statements, but this is truly one of those cases where I can no longer realistically see anything but one of two outcomes that are viable - either we let people die, or we go with national healthcare.
You may argue the points in the reply to your other post.
There are countries out there that don't care if their citizens die, perhaps you'd like to try one of those? N Korea, Somalia, Sudan, Syria?
Hospitals are collapsing due to being *REQUIRED* to treat patents regardless of ability to pay. And once treatment starts the doctors don't have any clue if you can pay or not, so you get the same exact treatment as a 'payer' gets.
I forgot to mention this part, and thanks to the options button, lost a well written one. So here's the short version:
Do you support:
* Waiting to respond to the scene of an accident or emergency until determining whether the victims can pay?
* Waiting to cart off victims needing ER care until they can provide proof of financial capability?
* Allowing patients to sit or die in ER waiting rooms until capability to pay can be provided?
* Stopping surgery or yanking life supporting devices if the money runs out?
Ron Paul does. Do You? (Got to give him credit for stating his beliefs and following through on them)
Ron Paul is also seriously misguided - he states charities will take care of those that cannot afford to pay. Charities are already handling the overflow from the current failing system and can't handle all of it. Hence the imminent implosion of the current system.
So, unless you advocate all of the above, then you're only left with one rational solution: you support national health care/insurance, whether you like the idea or not.
The current system could be made a lot better to the point that charities might be able to handle the difference by the following:
* All health provider must post prices for all services. These prices will be the only prices charged, with no discounts, and no kickbacks.
* State regulation of health insurance will largely end. Health insurance bought from an out of state provider will solely be regulated by the feds (as stated in the Constitution, btw)
* Health insurance providers may have no ownership nor insterest in any health care provider
* Health insurance providers must pay out or provide bonding within a reasonable time frame, such as 30 days, to prevent the current common practice of delaying tactics regarding payments, which is hurting small practices.
* Health insurance may not be denied anyone having equivalent coverage. (Base Levels of Coverage would probably have to be set on a national scale) and those covered may not be dropped if their payments are kept current. Note that this means all health care providers will eventually be covered under federal rules, since people move.
That evens the pricing playing field, removes significant complications to billing, removes the impediments to real competition with the health insurance providers, and last, but not least, removes the incestuous feedback loop between health insurance providers and some large health care providers that is squeezing out the majority of private and small practices.
Even all these changes may not prevent the current system from collapsing in on itself. It does remove the health insurance industry from dictating what type of care you will receive and from whom you'll get it. (Gee - that sounds a lot like one of the main arguments against national health care)
Speaking of National Healthcare, while I support it as a concept, I don't believe it should be more than basic health care. I.E., once a year wellness visits, vaccinations, and care for things like broken bones and other accidents, with longer term care moved over to that large facility the gov already owns, VA hospitals. Chronic illnesses, better care, etc, for non-military should be handled by private insurance, so by insuring yourself, you can check into non VA or charitable hospitals, and have care by Dr's you choose.
That's just my view of where national healthcare should have gone, and it would probably not have garnered so much negativity.
(And what's the deal with slashcode - lists are no longer functioning, at least in preview mode.)
once treatment starts the doctors don't have any clue if you can pay or not
Actually, we do. But the fastest way to get a non-paying patient out of the hospital is to treat them, so they get treatment.
I was also under the impression that in this case the care given was to stabilize the patient to the point they could be released only, no other steps would be taken.
you're both and idiot and a moron. (Gee, that really helps make a point!)
If you're not dying or at risk of dying, then you get to sit and sit and sit among other sick people that aren't high enough on the "risk" list yet until a slot opens up that they can be helped in. Not only that, people have died in those ER waiting rooms that you describe waiting on care.
Still want to make the argument that without health insurance you get the same care?
I explain it as you lived in a socialist nation. Myself i will give up health care in exchange for freedom.
Also, you are incorrect since anyone can get care in this nation if they need to. Just drive down to the hospital and they WILL treat you, regardless of your ability to pay.
Then I suggest strongly that you give up your medical insurance until you've made 3 trips to said hospital and experienced the lack of health care you get via that route.
You obviously need a major dose of reality, and experiencing it is going to be the only way your eyes will be opened.
Imagine if, in order to stop murder, we created a law that said anyone who suspects someone of murdering their family member may hold them prisoner, possibly indefinately, with the burden of proof on the accused to show that he is not guilty. We would be legalizing vigilante enforcement at the hands of the most biased party, with the presumption of guilt until proven innocent.
This is what SOPA does, and it is incidious. It is not establishing the rule of law. It is using the cloak of law to legitimize lawless percecution. And I don't think for one moment that it's accidental.
Thing is, when the government does the beating, it's not vigilanteism. What SOPA is doing is, elevating the *AAs up to a government department without oversight and hijacking the law enforcement agencies of the government to do their dirty work.
Not exactly, what it really does it give the various law enforcement agencies new headmasters who give orders that have no accountability, no recourse of action to their victims, and essentially has the taxpayers foot the bill for it so many times over I can't count them.
Here's the scariest thing I've read: Lamar Smith is also the sponsor of H.R. 1981 Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011 (info: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR01981:@@@L&summ2=m&). What someone on Reddit suggested might happen (and I see as all too plausible) is that they will modify the text of SOPA/PIPA a bit and tack it on to this bill.
He's already slipping in the kiddie porn card. Read his response.
Actually we have lots and lots more, maybe not as accurate, but accurate enough to estimate changes in ice coverage, for one, or sea levels, for another.
These are facts: ice is melting, all over the world (polar ice caps are the smallest in recorded history, far more than 100 years, glaciers are receding that existing throughout recorded history) sea levels are rising as a result temperatures are rising (ice, and snow!, reflect a lot of light and heat. When they melt, voila, heat absorption.) areas are turning into deserts that were not deserts in known geological times.
Do you need more proof of warming, or are you going to insist it's a figment of everyone else's imagination as you go find a new area of desert to stick your head in the sand?
Let me be clear, I'm certainly not in favor of this ruling, but allow me to play Devil's advocate for a moment with out being moded down: The counter argument to what you are saying is that taking a work out of the public domain allows the owner of the work to profit from it. The profits can then be used to fund new creative works.
I won't mod you down, instead, I'll point out that it's very difficult to have a the creator of a work (the original owner, not some sleazebag that bought the rights to a work) to be incented to create a new work by pulling a work out of the public domain when that entry into the public domain occurs 75 years after they're dead.
Oh, you're talking about those works that entered the public domain before 1934? Those creators are almost wholly and to a number dead.
Re:Part of a money conflict within the King family
on
A Copyright Nightmare
·
· Score: 1
No... copyright is about the right to copy. Not to distribute.
You are entirely incorrect. I can make 1000 copies of something - it's not illegal. I can make a single copy of something else and give it to a friend, and it's a violation of copyright.
Slashdot Mirror
You deserve a +1 Insightfully Funny mod.
My first university roommate played APP endlessly. Could have been worse (future roommate liked to drop the Minnelli New York, New York bombshell at 7 a.m.). .
And I thought the endless rendition of "Staring at the Sea" by a former roommate was unequaled torture! You win.
I was originally going to submit the story yesterday with the comment "how could they consider this patentable? We had windows with full 3D manipulation going on prior to 1991. We ran Patran via X11 and to the layman that would appear as a "super" browser window. It covered all aspects of any interactive patent by having full 2-way communication, visualization, and interaction. The only thing it didn't do was run over HTTP."
But it looks like common sense ruled and the jury did the right thing for once, even in Tyler.
What does a film producer produce?
Why... films? But seriously, film producers generally do more than merely put money down, and films require a lot more than a couple of people to produce, unless, of course, you're the guys that created Primer.
the issue is not as clear cut... If it were then ...musicians and bands simply wouldn't use major record companies, they'd do it all themselves. Some do. But not the ones who have become household names. Surely that must tell us something?
That tells me that in the current climate, it's very difficult to get exposure unless one of the big distributors has a stake in it.
Take the Grateful Dead, for instance. They toured for years, had plenty of people go to their concerts, and sold lots and lots of records, tapes, and CDs. Do they get air play on the radio?
Another instance, this one more telling, is the airplay, or lack thereof, received by Ninch Inch Nails The Slip, in comparison to the previous Year Zero or With Teeth, both of which had a distributor. For those that like NIN, The Slip has several good songs on it, but received almost no airplay while similar songs on the previous 2 albums got overplayed into the dirt.
I too have done the DOM and Ajax coding in the "old" days, even before Prototype really took off. I'd have to agree that writing cross-browser Ajax code is trivially simple.
On the other hand, JQuery does have some appeal in making some things easier.
Actually, it's a combination of controller and firmware that seems important. And super fast but exploding vs a little slower but reliable wins in the long run everytime. It's why I got the Intel, it was the only "stable" one at the time.
I've had a lot of experience with RAID over a long time, both in the enterprise and at home. I prefer software RAID 0 for home systems. I'm currently running a software RAID 0 stripe across 4 drives for roughly a TB of fast workspace space. The remainder of those 4 drives is used as normal storage, with a fifth for backing up that RAID 0 stripe. I no longer use any other RAID for the home. I don't have uptime requirements, which is all redundant arrays are good for anyways. I use another set of external drives to keep backups of the non RAID data.(Yes, that's a lot of drives and a lot of space, I haven't lost anything in over 15 years and a number of drive failures, not to mention that drives are cheap) My home system also uses that X25M for it's boot disk. It was a test, and it's passed. It's fast enough that while I may try a RAID 0 stripe set of SSDs for the system drive, I don't see the need at the moment.
In the enterprise, at this point, I wouldn't use anything other than hardware RAID10 where I needed performance, and RAID 1 elsewhere. Uptime is usually quite important. A good controller will actually use both disks in RAID 1 for reads and the striping can be either software or hardware, depending upon your layout and needs. These aren't the crappy cheap home controllers, and there usually is no performance hit for using hardware based RAID.
Ad yet my X25M, which came at a steep price, is still performing well 1.5 years later while several others I know have gone through several competing drives in the same period. Anecdotal, I know, but when I decided on a drive, the only one without the kind of failure stories my colleagues went through was the Intel drive. Sometimes you do get what you pay for.
The question isn't so much about whether the embryo is human and alive (it's both in most cases) but whether that other organism, the woman it's in and you neglect to mention anywhere in your statements, should be subjugated (ie, forced) into 9 months of what is essentially slavery for another human.
That many women choose to carry their babies to full term and give birth is remarkable. If you're against abortion - great, don't have one. If you want to tell someone else they can't have one - here's a thought - take over whatever is left of the 9 month gestation period yourself and then the next 23 years of love and support to make that new human life a successful adult. (You didn't think it stopped at birth, high school, or age 18, did you?) If you aren't willing to go the full route - you have absolutely no say in what someone else decides, IMNSHO. Oh, and you wouldn't only be able to do this once, you'd have to do it along with every other control freak dumbass that decided other people shouldn't have full control and decision making powers over their own bodies every single time someone chooses not to carry to full term.
Personal encryption is not easy on a PC, but remarkably hard on common mobile devices. I still dont know of any easy to use system for supporting PGP on my iPad/iPhone, or even on Android. I do have an app that can decode PGP blobs, but it is such a painn having to copy and paste between the apps. Why cant this be built in to the mail clients?
This is actually easier than you can imagine, provided you've worked in the space.
I was doing 2048bit PGP email encryption and signing back around 96 or so, until my employer banned it on work computers. (They were perfectly justified in doing so.)
Facebook especially, and Twitter maybe, are as bad as Google in tracking who you are, where you've been, and linking all sorts of information about you. Facebook also has a nice, nifty huge photo ID DB in hand, easily used to visually identify millions of people, all thanks to the ever helpful "tag this photo" system.
So no, you do not only tell us the parts you want known, you reveal much much more to Facebook, Google, and Twitter and their customers (who are not you, btw, you're the product)
The only way you avoid this is by engaging precisely in some of that activity described above as being "suspicious".
I also suppose my company and clients are "suspicious", since they force me, for some reason, to log into their systems via secure VPNs while I administer or deploy systems. I can't imagine why? And what about those outfits like Sony and Verisign? Oh wait, they both aren't that suspicious, hackers freely access their information.
120 was insufficient, I got a 240Hz. Guess it was a good idea to hold out.
In your example you could have had insurance/pay your bills in the first place, so its a non discussion related to the original topic. Try again with a rational argument if you want to continue. If not, then see ya.
And ill say the same thing i did to the last idiot. If you love socialism so much get the hell out of my country. You don't belong here.
"idiot says as idiot does" (paraphrased from Forrest Gump, brighter than you)
I drew up a logical chart of where we are and what the choices are. There are few things I agree with Bush on, especially his "you're either with us or against us" black and white statements, but this is truly one of those cases where I can no longer realistically see anything but one of two outcomes that are viable - either we let people die, or we go with national healthcare.
You may argue the points in the reply to your other post.
There are countries out there that don't care if their citizens die, perhaps you'd like to try one of those? N Korea, Somalia, Sudan, Syria?
nurb432 apparently is advocating that all we do is minimal fixing and kick them out, but can't admit it.
Hospitals are collapsing due to being *REQUIRED* to treat patents regardless of ability to pay. And once treatment starts the doctors don't have any clue if you can pay or not, so you get the same exact treatment as a 'payer' gets.
I forgot to mention this part, and thanks to the options button, lost a well written one. So here's the short version: Do you support:
Ron Paul does. Do You? (Got to give him credit for stating his beliefs and following through on them) Ron Paul is also seriously misguided - he states charities will take care of those that cannot afford to pay. Charities are already handling the overflow from the current failing system and can't handle all of it. Hence the imminent implosion of the current system. So, unless you advocate all of the above, then you're only left with one rational solution: you support national health care/insurance, whether you like the idea or not. The current system could be made a lot better to the point that charities might be able to handle the difference by the following:
That evens the pricing playing field, removes significant complications to billing, removes the impediments to real competition with the health insurance providers, and last, but not least, removes the incestuous feedback loop between health insurance providers and some large health care providers that is squeezing out the majority of private and small practices. Even all these changes may not prevent the current system from collapsing in on itself. It does remove the health insurance industry from dictating what type of care you will receive and from whom you'll get it. (Gee - that sounds a lot like one of the main arguments against national health care) Speaking of National Healthcare, while I support it as a concept, I don't believe it should be more than basic health care. I.E., once a year wellness visits, vaccinations, and care for things like broken bones and other accidents, with longer term care moved over to that large facility the gov already owns, VA hospitals. Chronic illnesses, better care, etc, for non-military should be handled by private insurance, so by insuring yourself, you can check into non VA or charitable hospitals, and have care by Dr's you choose. That's just my view of where national healthcare should have gone, and it would probably not have garnered so much negativity. (And what's the deal with slashcode - lists are no longer functioning, at least in preview mode.)
once treatment starts the doctors don't have any clue if you can pay or not
Actually, we do. But the fastest way to get a non-paying patient out of the hospital is to treat them, so they get treatment.
I was also under the impression that in this case the care given was to stabilize the patient to the point they could be released only, no other steps would be taken.
you're both and idiot and a moron. (Gee, that really helps make a point!)
If you're not dying or at risk of dying, then you get to sit and sit and sit among other sick people that aren't high enough on the "risk" list yet until a slot opens up that they can be helped in. Not only that, people have died in those ER waiting rooms that you describe waiting on care.
Still want to make the argument that without health insurance you get the same care?
I explain it as you lived in a socialist nation. Myself i will give up health care in exchange for freedom.
Also, you are incorrect since anyone can get care in this nation if they need to. Just drive down to the hospital and they WILL treat you, regardless of your ability to pay.
Then I suggest strongly that you give up your medical insurance until you've made 3 trips to said hospital and experienced the lack of health care you get via that route.
You obviously need a major dose of reality, and experiencing it is going to be the only way your eyes will be opened.
Thing is, when the government does the beating, it's not vigilanteism. What SOPA is doing is, elevating the *AAs up to a government department without oversight and hijacking the law enforcement agencies of the government to do their dirty work.
Not exactly, what it really does it give the various law enforcement agencies new headmasters who give orders that have no accountability, no recourse of action to their victims, and essentially has the taxpayers foot the bill for it so many times over I can't count them.
Here's the scariest thing I've read: Lamar Smith is also the sponsor of H.R. 1981 Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011 (info: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR01981:@@@L&summ2=m&). What someone on Reddit suggested might happen (and I see as all too plausible) is that they will modify the text of SOPA/PIPA a bit and tack it on to this bill.
He's already slipping in the kiddie porn card. Read his response.
Actually we have lots and lots more, maybe not as accurate, but accurate enough to estimate changes in ice coverage, for one, or sea levels, for another.
These are facts:
ice is melting, all over the world (polar ice caps are the smallest in recorded history, far more than 100 years, glaciers are receding that existing throughout recorded history)
sea levels are rising as a result
temperatures are rising (ice, and snow!, reflect a lot of light and heat. When they melt, voila, heat absorption.)
areas are turning into deserts that were not deserts in known geological times.
Do you need more proof of warming, or are you going to insist it's a figment of everyone else's imagination as you go find a new area of desert to stick your head in the sand?
Let me be clear, I'm certainly not in favor of this ruling, but allow me to play Devil's advocate for a moment with out being moded down: The counter argument to what you are saying is that taking a work out of the public domain allows the owner of the work to profit from it. The profits can then be used to fund new creative works.
I won't mod you down, instead, I'll point out that it's very difficult to have a the creator of a work (the original owner, not some sleazebag that bought the rights to a work) to be incented to create a new work by pulling a work out of the public domain when that entry into the public domain occurs 75 years after they're dead.
Oh, you're talking about those works that entered the public domain before 1934? Those creators are almost wholly and to a number dead.
I'll mod it how I damn well please.
Which is "not at all" now that you've posted.
Or perhaps it is....
Wrong. Physical goods are different.
Why? Given the scenario?
No... copyright is about the right to copy. Not to distribute.
You are entirely incorrect. I can make 1000 copies of something - it's not illegal. I can make a single copy of something else and give it to a friend, and it's a violation of copyright.
Go read the law.