However, one thing that some of the slashdot crowd tends to ignore is that content owners have rights too.
No, they don't! They have a privilage of a finite-duration monopoly, created by the government, for the express purpose of "promot[ing] the progress of science and the useful arts!" Nothing more! This is exactly the opposite of a "natural right."
Or are we suddenly to believe that the only things that have value are physical things?
That's how it's been during 99.99999% of human history (i.e., everything except the last 200 years or so). You know the Bible? No copyright! Beowulf? The works of William Shakespeare? All those revered works of art, music, etc. created during the Renaissance? No copyright on any of them! And it's not because it expired; there never was any copyright on them. Yet they still got created! <sarcasm>Gee, I wonder how that possibly could have happened!</sarcasm>
Face it: copyright was a fluke, which just happened to make sense in the period between when duplication technology was invented and when it became cheap enough for ubiquitous use. That time is over, and copyright is now no more relevant than the buggy-whip was after the invention of the automobile.
Unless, I suppose, wealth was easily regained, and getting robbed was all part of the ebb and flow of the game.
Isn't that the essential distinction between a "game" and "real life" anyway? I mean, the difference between America's Army and enlisting is that you respawn when you get killed in the game. The difference between Monopoly and investing is that you don't become homeless when you go lose. The difference between sports (e.g. baseball, archery) and hunting is that you don't starve when you miss the target.
A game with actual consequences wouldn't be a game anymore!
Re:Worthless without a cooling fan...
on
Lap Desks
·
· Score: 1
I think the problem, at least on laptops, is the presence of the fans themselves. If they were passively-cooled (or better yet, without any air space on the inside at all) they wouldn't get so clogged up with dust.
Then maybe people should just stop assuming and write in a gender-neutral way.
Maybe people should just realize that "he" is the gender-neutral pronoun in English! All you dipshits butchering the language in the name of "political-correctness" can kiss my ass!
it did figure out that "flies" was a verb in the first sentence and a noun in the second!
Actually... "fruit flies like a banana" is grammatically ambiguous anyway, and you aren't interpreting it in the usual way. "Flies" is a verb in both sentences; the saying is an illustration of idiomatic versus literal usage of words, not one of verb usage versus noun usage. Using "flies" as a noun, the sentence reads "Fruit flies [i.e., the insects] like [enjoy] a banana." Using it as a verb, it reads "fruit flies [through the air] like a [thrown] banana."
The way to use Babelfish with a little more consideration is to run your text through, then run the output back into your original language and see what you get back.
On that note, try translating "all your base are belong to us" to French and back. You'll be amazed.
That makes me wonder how much effort the people who make Babelfish put into that particular translation. With English being the lingua franca (oh, the irony of that phrase!) of the Internet, I wouldn't be surprised if Dutch to English, then English to Hebrew would have worked better. But then again, maybe that's how Babelfish works under the hood anyway?
I forget whether it was Popular Science or Popular Mechanics, but one of them recently had a big article about this sort of thing, and one of the gadgets they described fits your idea. If you read that article, you could find where to buy and/or how to make one.
I'm honestly rather impressed that Valve's kept it up this long without spilling the beans.
Everything you said made perfect sense except for that line. Not only do we and Gordon not know who Gordon is, but Valve doesn't either! This makes it rather easy for them not to "spill the beans" -- there aren't any to spill in the first place!
The only weird parts I see about it are that Gordon used to work with Eli, and Eli has aged 10 years but Gordon hasn't since GMan did some trickery to seemingly move him 10 years into the future without aging.
It's not at all obvious that Gordon was similar in age to Eli; in fact, I think it's more likely that Gordon was one of Eli's (and Dr. Kleiner's) assistants. (This explains why Gordon was the one doing the "dirty work" in the test chamber in the first place...) Gordon could, in fact, be only slightly older than Alyx now.
Any out of the way bits (such as newspaper clippings) are merely extras designed to reward players who take the time to look for such things.
Personally, I would have enjoyed a lot more backstory, and I don't think I'm alone in feeling that way.
You have three factions... resistance, combine, and xen aliens.
And what about Race X? (Speaking of lack of backstory...)
I thought about mentioning it in the previous post, but didn't. Apparently, I should have:
I would also classify the ability to engage in corruption by the type of entity, too. Government can engage in "corruption" because it has responsibilities to constituents, who are harmed by the act. Corporations cannot engage in "corruption" in this sort of instance because they do not have responsibilities to the parties the "corruption" would be harming. On the contrary, the corporation's act of "corruption" would be intended to benefit the corporation's constituents (i.e., the shareholders). I really don't think the actions are comparable in this case, so they should be labeled differently too.
Now, corporations could engage in corruption in a different way than is being alleged here: the management could be acting to help itself while harming the shareholders. That sort of thing, for which an example would be Enron, I would classify as corporate corruption. But that's different from what Microsoft is [alleged to be] doing.
I think you got that backwards. Weren't you trying to say that the money to buy bandwidth is finite (or equivalently, not infinite)?
Most people have no idea that Comcast has to buy bandwidth and think the answer is simply to upgrade equipment to handle more bandwidth.
On the contrary, in the general case, all the ISPs have to do is upgrade equipment. How so, you ask? Well, I'm saying that the equipment upgrades have to occur up the ISP chain too, all the way to the backbone. Upgrade the equipment on the background, and Comcast can buy cheaper bits! Ultimately, upgrading the equipment is the solution -- the entire solution -- that matters./p>
If you were an ISP and one user was using the same bandwidth as 200 other users combined, I'm sure you would be looking at options.
Oh, certainly! I can appreciate that Comcast is screwed, because they promised an "unlimited" service. However, you can't escape the fact that they chose to call it "unlimited," and thus screwed themselves. If I were in their shoes, the first thing I'd be doing is re-evaluating my "unlimited" claim (assuming I even made such a stupid claim in the first place).
Especially if the applications were spreading to the rest of the users so your number of high usage users grew like clockwork. It will be the time to decide to up the subscription cost 200X or limit high bandwidth use.
See, here's the thing: all those bits have to be going somewhere. Therefore, the places those bits are going have to be "growing like clockwork" too. Now, we all know that different pieces of technology don't improve at the same rate; e.g., transistor count/speed is growing faster than HDD storage density. But if those bits are going to HDDs, then the bandwidth ought to be improving at a fast enough rate to keep up!
Why isn't it? You say it's because the technology is inherently too expensive; I say that's BS. I say it's due to the ability of telcos to charge monopolist rents while renenging on the promises they made to the government, when they received all the various grants, exclusive right-of-way, and other public support they've received in the last few decades.
Anti-competitive behaviour is not the same as corruption.
They're two sides of the same coin: Microsoft is displaying anti-competitive behavior by offering the bribe; Nigeria is displaying corruption by accepting it.
Here's where your analogy fails: this commons isn't finite! Comcast and other telcos have had all the opportunity in the world to upgrade the backbones to deal with the demand. They've chosen not to do so, and that's their problem, not ours. I do not believe for one second that they "can't afford" to take on the burden of actually fulfilling their "unlimited" promises, even with BitTorrent users, while still charging a reasonable rate. They just aren't willing to do so, because it would cut into their monopolist's profit. Hell, telcos in general have had billions of dollars worth of public funds directly invested for specifically that purpose (and even Comcast gets public support, in the form of easements and exclusive rights), and they've squandered it! That's the real problem to be fixed; cracking down on torrent users is a red herring, bullshit excuse.
Shouldn't we wait for some more specific information/evidence before we accuse Microsoft of bribery?
Heck, no!
Look, over the entire history of Microsoft, has there ever been an occasion where it was accused of doing something anti-competitive and turned out to be innocent? No! Then why would you expect things to have magically changed now? Is it opposite day? Are pigs flying? Is Satan putting on a sweater? Stop me if I guess it...
Slashdot Mirror
No, they don't! They have a privilage of a finite-duration monopoly, created by the government, for the express purpose of "promot[ing] the progress of science and the useful arts!" Nothing more! This is exactly the opposite of a "natural right."
That's how it's been during 99.99999% of human history (i.e., everything except the last 200 years or so). You know the Bible? No copyright! Beowulf? The works of William Shakespeare? All those revered works of art, music, etc. created during the Renaissance? No copyright on any of them! And it's not because it expired; there never was any copyright on them. Yet they still got created! <sarcasm>Gee, I wonder how that possibly could have happened!</sarcasm>
Face it: copyright was a fluke, which just happened to make sense in the period between when duplication technology was invented and when it became cheap enough for ubiquitous use. That time is over, and copyright is now no more relevant than the buggy-whip was after the invention of the automobile.
No, because they can also delete the stolen goods.
Oh yeah, and also it's a damn game, not real life!
Isn't that the essential distinction between a "game" and "real life" anyway? I mean, the difference between America's Army and enlisting is that you respawn when you get killed in the game. The difference between Monopoly and investing is that you don't become homeless when you go lose. The difference between sports (e.g. baseball, archery) and hunting is that you don't starve when you miss the target.
A game with actual consequences wouldn't be a game anymore!
I think the problem, at least on laptops, is the presence of the fans themselves. If they were passively-cooled (or better yet, without any air space on the inside at all) they wouldn't get so clogged up with dust.
Actually, no. To be a tablet it needs more than a rotating screen; it also needs a touchscreen or digitizer. I'm pretty sure the XO doesn't have that.
23, but I'm working hard on my curmudgeon skills.
Maybe people should just realize that "he" is the gender-neutral pronoun in English! All you dipshits butchering the language in the name of "political-correctness" can kiss my ass!
I meant usual in terms of the saying. Nobody uses that sentence in normal conversation with either meaning!
Ironically, that phrase translates perfectly in Babelfish (to French and back, at least... try it!).
Actually... "fruit flies like a banana" is grammatically ambiguous anyway, and you aren't interpreting it in the usual way. "Flies" is a verb in both sentences; the saying is an illustration of idiomatic versus literal usage of words, not one of verb usage versus noun usage. Using "flies" as a noun, the sentence reads "Fruit flies [i.e., the insects] like [enjoy] a banana." Using it as a verb, it reads "fruit flies [through the air] like a [thrown] banana."
On that note, try translating "all your base are belong to us" to French and back. You'll be amazed.
There's two kinds of "tons." Only one of them is SI. And yes, the idiom he used is common here in the US.
Also, calling a native a "yank" would get you beaten up in the less cosmopolitan areas of my part of the country (the South).
That makes me wonder how much effort the people who make Babelfish put into that particular translation. With English being the lingua franca (oh, the irony of that phrase!) of the Internet, I wouldn't be surprised if Dutch to English, then English to Hebrew would have worked better. But then again, maybe that's how Babelfish works under the hood anyway?
I forget whether it was Popular Science or Popular Mechanics, but one of them recently had a big article about this sort of thing, and one of the gadgets they described fits your idea. If you read that article, you could find where to buy and/or how to make one.
Everything you said made perfect sense except for that line. Not only do we and Gordon not know who Gordon is, but Valve doesn't either! This makes it rather easy for them not to "spill the beans" -- there aren't any to spill in the first place!
It's not at all obvious that Gordon was similar in age to Eli; in fact, I think it's more likely that Gordon was one of Eli's (and Dr. Kleiner's) assistants. (This explains why Gordon was the one doing the "dirty work" in the test chamber in the first place...) Gordon could, in fact, be only slightly older than Alyx now.
Personally, I would have enjoyed a lot more backstory, and I don't think I'm alone in feeling that way.
And what about Race X? (Speaking of lack of backstory...)
That may be true, but it sure would be nice if this causes manufactuers to start offering drives that actually contained a round number of GiB!
I thought about mentioning it in the previous post, but didn't. Apparently, I should have:
I would also classify the ability to engage in corruption by the type of entity, too. Government can engage in "corruption" because it has responsibilities to constituents, who are harmed by the act. Corporations cannot engage in "corruption" in this sort of instance because they do not have responsibilities to the parties the "corruption" would be harming. On the contrary, the corporation's act of "corruption" would be intended to benefit the corporation's constituents (i.e., the shareholders). I really don't think the actions are comparable in this case, so they should be labeled differently too.
Now, corporations could engage in corruption in a different way than is being alleged here: the management could be acting to help itself while harming the shareholders. That sort of thing, for which an example would be Enron, I would classify as corporate corruption. But that's different from what Microsoft is [alleged to be] doing.
See what I mean?
I think you got that backwards. Weren't you trying to say that the money to buy bandwidth is finite (or equivalently, not infinite)?
On the contrary, in the general case, all the ISPs have to do is upgrade equipment. How so, you ask? Well, I'm saying that the equipment upgrades have to occur up the ISP chain too, all the way to the backbone. Upgrade the equipment on the background, and Comcast can buy cheaper bits! Ultimately, upgrading the equipment is the solution -- the entire solution -- that matters./p>
Oh, certainly! I can appreciate that Comcast is screwed, because they promised an "unlimited" service. However, you can't escape the fact that they chose to call it "unlimited," and thus screwed themselves. If I were in their shoes, the first thing I'd be doing is re-evaluating my "unlimited" claim (assuming I even made such a stupid claim in the first place).
See, here's the thing: all those bits have to be going somewhere. Therefore, the places those bits are going have to be "growing like clockwork" too. Now, we all know that different pieces of technology don't improve at the same rate; e.g., transistor count/speed is growing faster than HDD storage density. But if those bits are going to HDDs, then the bandwidth ought to be improving at a fast enough rate to keep up!
Why isn't it? You say it's because the technology is inherently too expensive; I say that's BS. I say it's due to the ability of telcos to charge monopolist rents while renenging on the promises they made to the government, when they received all the various grants, exclusive right-of-way, and other public support they've received in the last few decades.
They're two sides of the same coin: Microsoft is displaying anti-competitive behavior by offering the bribe; Nigeria is displaying corruption by accepting it.
No, you'd still need a law because FCC policy can change at the FCC's (not the public's) whim.
Here's where your analogy fails: this commons isn't finite! Comcast and other telcos have had all the opportunity in the world to upgrade the backbones to deal with the demand. They've chosen not to do so, and that's their problem, not ours. I do not believe for one second that they "can't afford" to take on the burden of actually fulfilling their "unlimited" promises, even with BitTorrent users, while still charging a reasonable rate. They just aren't willing to do so, because it would cut into their monopolist's profit. Hell, telcos in general have had billions of dollars worth of public funds directly invested for specifically that purpose (and even Comcast gets public support, in the form of easements and exclusive rights), and they've squandered it! That's the real problem to be fixed; cracking down on torrent users is a red herring, bullshit excuse.
Nah, that only applies to real people. Corporations (and other organizations, such as government) should be treated with far more suspicion.
Heck, no!
Look, over the entire history of Microsoft, has there ever been an occasion where it was accused of doing something anti-competitive and turned out to be innocent? No! Then why would you expect things to have magically changed now? Is it opposite day? Are pigs flying? Is Satan putting on a sweater? Stop me if I guess it...
Yes: Microsoft's history of corruption and anti-competitive behavior over the entire history of the company.
At this point, it's up to Microsoft to prove its innocence, not the other way around!