About five years ago I was generally in favour of limited invasion of privacy like ID cards, CCTV etc. The level of craziness coming from Labour in the area has pushed me into the privacy nut camp.
See, this is one of the problems. Not to pick on you, but let me use your anecdote as an example. People who think 'ok, I trust my government, let's go along with them and give up a tiny bit of privacy to get all this security they're advertising.' And they ignore us 'nutters' who are screaming things like "slippery slope! 1984!" thinking that we're just overreacting. But now fast forward 5 years and oho, look who was right! The government especially always lives up to the old saying "give em an inch and they'll take a mile." People need to understand that whatever the government is asking for, it has more than just the advertised motive. Whether for good or ill (usually ill with respect to the populace) there are more issues at stake than what they tell us because that's what politics is, it's a game of chess, a subtle pawn move today sets up the checkmate tomorrow. Every government in the history of man has sought to expand its own power, that's a rather strong precedent to go against. (And I don't care about the pedantic historian who posts with a few counterexamples, over 1000s of years, such examples are anomolies.) It always amazes me when ignorant people just assume new powers will be used for good because the government so far has been good. This is especially risky in governments where we change leaders every so often. Sure, you may trust the people in charge today, but 10 years from now will you have the same faith in the leaders elected then? You'd better because those laws won't be going off the books, not w/o a revolution.
I hope you personally have learned from your mistake of supporting any loss of freedom, no matter how trivial, and are preaching the word of caution to others. It's a bum deal, never willingly give up what you would otherwise fight to protect, even if you trust the current government.
While I agree with you that there is a philosophical argument to be made about the subjectivity inherent in processing a RAW file into an image, let's face facts, this is wholly different from manipulating the final image to change the content. Only in a few border cases would the two be the same. e.g. a Volcano erupts and the photo caption is "the sky was turned black from the volcanic ash" and the photographer adjusts the contrast/brightness of the shot to make it look much darker than perhaps it was [to the human eye]. But this is not what we're talking about. No matter how much you futz with brightness, contrast, sharpness, color filters, etc, you're not going to change the actual content of the scene. There is no "development process" adjustment that adds more smoke to a bulding, more casualties to a bomb scene, or soldiers in places where they weren't. It's all well and good to discuss the philosophy of the development process affecting the feel - and to some extent perception - of a photo, but this is vastly different from literally editing the contents of the image to produce a scene that never physically existed. And yes, it IS vastly different, in that with your RAW file anyone could apply the right filters and get the image you produced, all the information was in the data and it's just selectively representing according to an indescriminate filter. Removing or adding people or objects is not a dumb filter, it is a targeted attempt to change the data itself, not the representation of that data.
Kirk [Walken]: Damnit... Scotty..... I need more cowbell!
Patsy: Power, sir!
Kirk: Power!
Ok,now I'm mixing movies like a bartender mixes drinks but, damnit! Walken already has the disjointed off-canter speech needed, oh and he can act too. Matt Damon, what do you bring to the table? Matt Damon: Maaattt Daaaamon!
A sermon-writing application? Word doesn't have a Insert->Scripture option?
I heard they tried to add that feature once but blood started pouring out of the PC speakers and all the text kept getting rewritten in demonic sanskrit. Apparently some incompatibility between the word of God and a Pure Evil OS. Works just fine in OpenOffice though!;)
So, do I want them to patent Prime? Depends on how they word the patent. But overall, I don't see many other internet businesses having a diverse-enough business to have it work for them.
How will they word it? As exclusively as possible, obviously. They don't want anyone else to muscle in on this and likely already have lawyers salivating over a few sites that come close enough to infringing to be used as test cases. They are not filing this patent for the good of humanity, they are trying to get a competitive edge that they will use directly to their own advantage. There is no such thing as a philanthropic patent, otherwise they would simply put it in the public domain immediately. As for other businesses using such a system, just because you can't imagine anyone else using it doesn't mean they don't - or won't - exist. It's shortsighted comments like that which lead to stifling innovation. And you're wrong anyway, here's a few other internet companies off the top of my head that could probably benefit by implementing such an all-you-can-eat shipping service: overstock.com, buy.com, thinkgeek.com, staples.com...... Get the picture? Any online store with a diverse range of products and customers who use them for repeat purchases could use this.
Also, depending on how this patent is worded Netflix could be infringing. After all, you pay one fee for the service and can ship 1 to X DVDs per month with no extra shipping charges. Hell, I'll bet Netflix is one of the first companies Amazon would go after for infringement if this patent is accepted.
where a "minor innovation" is protected for a short period of time so that its creators can get some benefit from being the first to do it. 6-12 months would be sufficient
In a capitalist society we call this window of protection "first to market".
Seriously, there's not need to create ANOTHER class of patents when the current system is in such obvious shambles. Such a "short-term" patent would also likely be abused heavily, with the patent owner adding small tweaks just before the expiration term to magically extend it, or something similar. Obviously available expoits would depend on the rules for such a patent class, but do you really trust those to be written well given how the current system is working? Again, no need for this, if you implement it first it will likely take your competitors about 6 months to reverse engineer and adapt to offering the same thing, no special short-term protections needed in that case.
I can't believe none of the previous replies said it, so I guess I'll have to: RTFA. It specifically mentions that someone will be on the moon with this stuff, it will not be at an unmanned base....
I was trying to get modded funny, but got insightful instead, figures. But in any case I did RTFA, and I have read other articles like it. And the only way that the staffed moon base concept works is if they are self-sufficient either perpetually or for very long periods of time, on the order of years. If there is an ELE (Extinction Level Event) or massive plague on Earth such that using such a genetic seed bank would be necessary then it stands to reason that the planet would not be ready for "reseeding" in any short amount of time. Also, depending on the nature of the event, the ground support staff, facilities, etc may not be around or usable anymore to aid in landing or deployment or any of that. So even if it's a manned lunar base, they still have to sit around with likely no help from earth until it's safe to return and begin work, and their landing support or runway may not even exist. So the moon base seems very unlikely, or at the very least a far far future scenario. As for the artic regions base, similar problems exist, it's unlikely we'd set up a long term permanent human presence there that would be self sustaining and able to return to civilization w/o some outside help, even if that help is just waiting for an icebreaker boat to make it's way to the port near the base. Assuming we had to send a group of survivors to the artic region to retrieve the stuff, they'd need to be experienced in navigating, hiking, extreme cold climate survival, etc etc. Again, if a large swath of humanity has been destroyed, the likelihood of getting together a team with all those skills diminishes greatly.
The only way this works is if there's either an autonomous (ie self sustaining) group of people to execute the reseeding, or if the process is automated. OK, sure, there are less devastating scenarios where the currently proposed gene bank would still work without getting that complicated, but what's the point of building the whole thing if it isn't going to be accessible or useful after a BIG event like an asteroid strike or nuclear war? I liked the idea that another reply had about automating an unmanned moonbase to work on a watchdog timer. No reset signal from earth in X time triggers it to begin some process to reseed earth, but even then without the system being capable of fully evaluating the situation it may just waste everything by landing at some ground zero, or deploying before the atmosphere is clear yet or whatever. Genetic seed banks need to be widely distributed, relatively easily accessible, run on renewable/redundent power sources, and come with a manual that a 3rd grader could operate from. In the event of a disaster so bad we need to use the banks, we have to assume the scientists and engineers that created the system may very well not be around to help us use it.
I agree those are all good examples of TERRIBLE patents and none should have been granted in the first place. For the record, though, the Swinging on a Swing patent had all of it's claims overturned on review after many people complained.
of the whole "genetic seed bank" concept is that the two most suggested locations are near one of earth's poles or somewhere in space/on the moon. Brilliant! Because as we all know, when a doomsday scenario kills off a huge percentage of the population, the specialized skillsets required to retrieve those samples are possesed by all, right?
Survivor 1: "Wow, that asteroid destroyed 95% of life here on Earth, but now that the dust has settled we can open the genetic vault and start anew! Now just where did we stick those samples?" Survivor 2: "Uh, on the moon I think." Survivor 1: "Oh, how convenient." [cries]
But the arguments are not that ALL DRM or RFID uses are bad. No one at the EFF is saying warehouses need to stop doing whole-pallet inventory tracking with the systems. What they are against is the current systems that actually can be harmful. e.g. RFID in passports - whether they have a foil cover or not, fact is they can be sniped and contain too much sensitive info, there are better ways to implement that. For DRM they are against proprietary systems that do an end-run around fair use rights by things like the DMCA. The EFF is not advocating the wholesale dismantling of these technologies, but rather the abuses of them by large corporations. And btw you need to do a bit more reading on RFID because your simple view of them is both limited and wrong. If anything they read LESS reliably than barcodes for various intereference reasons, whereas a barcode that's not smudged will scan when you point the laser at it everytime. And they do a LOT more than just hold a number to a DB somewhere. It's good tech, I love it, I hope it becomes ubiquitous, but only in a responsible way. I should not be identifiable in public to marketing booths with scanners that can tie every RFID'd item of clothing on my body to those purchases. It could literally lead to the Minority Report scene where every ad you walk past asks you how those gap jeans you just bought are working out and did you need socks with that? And other abuses to boot that people haven't even thought of. Your black and white view of the EFF is your decision to make, but it's an oversimplification.
While it may be true that in the short term it could benefit the EFF and/or Make, part of the reason they use codes like that is as a tracking metric. That metric will be skewed as a result of this, thus giving them bad data for future deals. Luckily due to the somewhat buried nature of the post it probably won't be more than a statistical blip, but a little chiding may prevent the OP from making that mistake again.;)
really make sure was a high-quality game that provided the action experience that you'd expect from a Star Wars game
Except that that was exactly NOT what the large installed base expected. What they expected was tweaks to the system they were currently enjoying, not having the carpet yanked from under their feet. What is it about Sony that even after decades of failed proprietary formats and software gaffs they still think they know better than the user what the user wants?
Very excellent advice. Your worry about cashing out longer term CDs is unwarranted though as long as you get a bank wiht a reasonable withdrawal penalty. I set up my first CD ladder exactly one year ago and I now have 4 CDs that revolve every 3 months, and I'm going to add four more to an offset 3 month cycle again this year, eventually I aim to have one CD come due every month, then I'll start staggering years so eventually I'll have the longest term CDs and still have them come due every few months.
But enough of my scheme, my point to you was check out ING Direct because there are NO minimums, high returns, and no matter what the CD term is it's only a 3 month interest penalty. So whether you break your 12 month, or your 60 month CD you will only lose 3 months interest, and only lose part of the principal if you cash out the CD before the first 3 months are up. If you believe that you'll be able to keep your hands off the CDs for at least 3 months (and with 3 months living expenses as you say then you're already set) then you have nothing to fear. Take an hour today, set up those CDs you're putting off. Trust me, you'll feel better and be much better off. I'm sure other banks have similar good deals, I just like ING. Also they gave me a 0.30% bonus APY to any CDs I roll over after being with them for a year, not a bad deal at all.
I agree, pick a school that will teach you not just how to do 'X' but how to adapt, learn, and develop a methodology that makes you capable of doing just about anything. Anyone with a textbook (or hell a good tutorial website) and some opensource software can learn to program. It takes a quailty environment and good teachers to show you how to actually think. Now that being said, no matter where you go the onus is on YOU to learn. You could very well get the same from an education that costs half as much as the A+ #1 college, but you have to work hard and actively pursue your education [everywhere]. So don't just sit there and learn by osmosis, learn some critical thinking and problem solving skills and you'll be set to do anything in your field of choice.
And as for the actual topic of college financial advice: Put all your extra cash in an ING account: no minimums, nearly the highest yield for savings accounts (see HSBC or Emigrant Direct for the usual highest 2), quick access to your money, easy online interface and secure + FDIC insured. The real bonus of using ING though is the high yield no-minimum CD (Certificate of Deposit) accounts. For a college kid you want safety, access, and a reasonable return. Break your money into 20% chunks, one of them keep in the regular savings. The other four gradually invest in 12 month CDs (ING is about 5.25% APY right now), a new one every 3 months set to auto-renew to a 12 month CD, auto-reinvest the interest earned. This is called a CD ladder. Now every 3 months you have penalty free access to part of your inital egg plus interest, and if you ever need all the money it's only a 3 month interest penatly, which lets face it, for emergency use isn't a big hit, especially if the one you cash out has been around for more than 3 months already.
And live like a cheap slob, now's the time you can get away with it and save some cash that way as well.;)
Your sarcasm is both delicious and spot-on. Interstingly enough this now means that the maximum punishment for putting a single word into the code for a page that must then be picked up by a search engine, searched for, clicked on, and NOT closed by the viewing child - is now more severe than say, running up to the same child in public and flashing them repeatedly. Does this even begin to make sense? The worst part is, if some congresscritter were to actually agree that this is obviously a disconnect in punishments, their solution would most likely be to simply amplify all other punishments to fix the distortion. Can we just go ahead and skip directly to the Judge Dredd future where alleged criminals are shot in the head where they stand to save time and money? After all, it's FOR THE CHILDREN.
While I appreciate that you ostensibly got this response because you donated to the EFF, you just gave out the Make discount code for free to all the people who may not have donated. That sort of negates the point of the discount being a reward for people who have supported the foundation. Next time think a little bit before you hit CTRL-V.
To others who read your post, I would urge you to actually donate something to the EFF if you intend to use that Make discount code.
I only agree with about half the stuff the EFF does. Not enough to earn my money, sorry.
Nice pessimistic view there, and I say that with a straight face despite my sig line. I think what you're forgetting is that the OTHER half of the stuff they do, that you DO support, is not being done by any other group. So go ahead, let your dislike of some of their fights keep you from supporting any of the other good that they are the only ones doing.
in this case the flight of the kite is a false positive in the context of 'something floating' - because a kite does not float. (In any scientific usage of the word 'float'.)
Arguing semantics aside, replace 'kite' with 'balloon' and his analogy is true, AND meets your pedantic requirement of the definition of "float". You are still correct that the problem of reproducibility stems from a poor description of the experiment, but playing devil's advocate for a moment, who's to say this is not what's plaguing the bubble fusion experiements?
It may well be that the scientists that are getting positive results are describing the conditions and steps of the experiment perfectly to their knowledge, but there is some other, unknown, condition that needs to be met for the experiement to be successful. Does this mean that every time someone fails to reproduce positive results it is a strike against the original theory? No, by your own admission, it could simply be a lack of complete information. Maybe it only works when a weak electromagnetic field is present, provided by the lighting in one lab and not present in the labs of others. Although the kite analogy may not be perfect, it pretty much illustrates the GP poster's point - failing to reproduce the experiment does not disprove the theory, that may be as simple as incompetance. On must demonstrate that the original results were incorrect or impossible.
So if I whipe the powder mustache off of my upper lip before the cop taps on the window, that means I never snorted?
No, you missed his point entirely. If IBM deleted this code from their source tree, it wouldn't matter since if it infact is part of the linux system then any other source code copy in the wild would still have it. IBM may have in actuality deleted obsolete or unused code from their dev tree, SCO is trying to point to that and say "Aha! destroying evidence!" but they could easily prove if the deleted materials were the smoking gun they were looking for by simply grabbing the supposed Linux build that the code would have been part of from some archive somewhere. And if no such copy of Linux exists - or hell even if it *was* SCO code but never made it into a Linux release - then there still isn't any copyright infringement because it was never copied into any product!
To fix your analogy, if you wipe the powder mustache from the powdered donut you were eating that you got from the bakery down the street and the cop taps on your window, then it doesn't matter if you snorted powdered sugar or not because it's demonstrably not an illicit substance. You can't prosecute someone for copyright infringement (SCO's point with the case) if they didn't actually, y'know, make any copies!
Hah! Hot damn man, that's a lot of hours. You wouldn't happen to be Alliance on Steamwheedle Cartel would you? Sure could use someone with that sort of dedication to run some instances with.....
If you are by random chance on that server send a note over to Gunthorp!
I've barely had time for a life, let alone other video games. That reminds me, guess I'd better cancel that XBox Live account so I can funnel the subscription fee into next month's WOW fee....
But his practice is in Florida, where it seems it's virtually impossible to get disbarred.
Agreed. Although IANAL, given what I have seen of his communications which get posted online from time to time I can't believe that there hasn't been enough evidence yet to get him disbarred. Whenever his logic is torn asunder by an opponent he is quick to revert to little more than "OMG STFU or I'll sue you!" He relies on his position as a lawyer to bully or intimidate others into either agreeing with him or keeping quiet. If nothing else don't state bar associations have rules regarding general conduct under which they could remove his right to practice?
I also wonder about his motivations. His stance against video games verges on psychotic at times. What happened Jack? Were you molested by an Atari as a child? Never got that ColecoVision you so desperately wanted for Christmas and so are taking your vengence out on all the other kids? Or is he planning on running for senator under the "I saved every child in the world from the video game horror" banner? It's like he lives and breathes destroying an entire industry, he won't be happy until we're playing pong with anti-alias blurred paddle graphics because the original versions too closely resemble a phallus.:P
Slashdot Mirror
About five years ago I was generally in favour of limited invasion of privacy like ID cards, CCTV etc. The level of craziness coming from Labour in the area has pushed me into the privacy nut camp.
See, this is one of the problems. Not to pick on you, but let me use your anecdote as an example. People who think 'ok, I trust my government, let's go along with them and give up a tiny bit of privacy to get all this security they're advertising.' And they ignore us 'nutters' who are screaming things like "slippery slope! 1984!" thinking that we're just overreacting. But now fast forward 5 years and oho, look who was right! The government especially always lives up to the old saying "give em an inch and they'll take a mile." People need to understand that whatever the government is asking for, it has more than just the advertised motive. Whether for good or ill (usually ill with respect to the populace) there are more issues at stake than what they tell us because that's what politics is, it's a game of chess, a subtle pawn move today sets up the checkmate tomorrow. Every government in the history of man has sought to expand its own power, that's a rather strong precedent to go against. (And I don't care about the pedantic historian who posts with a few counterexamples, over 1000s of years, such examples are anomolies.) It always amazes me when ignorant people just assume new powers will be used for good because the government so far has been good. This is especially risky in governments where we change leaders every so often. Sure, you may trust the people in charge today, but 10 years from now will you have the same faith in the leaders elected then? You'd better because those laws won't be going off the books, not w/o a revolution.
I hope you personally have learned from your mistake of supporting any loss of freedom, no matter how trivial, and are preaching the word of caution to others. It's a bum deal, never willingly give up what you would otherwise fight to protect, even if you trust the current government.
Who's there?
Landshark!
While I agree with you that there is a philosophical argument to be made about the subjectivity inherent in processing a RAW file into an image, let's face facts, this is wholly different from manipulating the final image to change the content. Only in a few border cases would the two be the same. e.g. a Volcano erupts and the photo caption is "the sky was turned black from the volcanic ash" and the photographer adjusts the contrast/brightness of the shot to make it look much darker than perhaps it was [to the human eye]. But this is not what we're talking about. No matter how much you futz with brightness, contrast, sharpness, color filters, etc, you're not going to change the actual content of the scene. There is no "development process" adjustment that adds more smoke to a bulding, more casualties to a bomb scene, or soldiers in places where they weren't. It's all well and good to discuss the philosophy of the development process affecting the feel - and to some extent perception - of a photo, but this is vastly different from literally editing the contents of the image to produce a scene that never physically existed. And yes, it IS vastly different, in that with your RAW file anyone could apply the right filters and get the image you produced, all the information was in the data and it's just selectively representing according to an indescriminate filter. Removing or adding people or objects is not a dumb filter, it is a targeted attempt to change the data itself, not the representation of that data.
Kirk [Walken]: Damnit... Scotty..... I need more cowbell!
Patsy: Power, sir!
Kirk: Power!
Ok,now I'm mixing movies like a bartender mixes drinks but, damnit! Walken already has the disjointed off-canter speech needed, oh and he can act too. Matt Damon, what do you bring to the table?
Matt Damon: Maaattt Daaaamon!
I rest my case.
A sermon-writing application? Word doesn't have a Insert->Scripture option?
;)
I heard they tried to add that feature once but blood started pouring out of the PC speakers and all the text kept getting rewritten in demonic sanskrit. Apparently some incompatibility between the word of God and a Pure Evil OS. Works just fine in OpenOffice though!
So, do I want them to patent Prime? Depends on how they word the patent. But overall, I don't see many other internet businesses having a diverse-enough business to have it work for them.
How will they word it? As exclusively as possible, obviously. They don't want anyone else to muscle in on this and likely already have lawyers salivating over a few sites that come close enough to infringing to be used as test cases. They are not filing this patent for the good of humanity, they are trying to get a competitive edge that they will use directly to their own advantage. There is no such thing as a philanthropic patent, otherwise they would simply put it in the public domain immediately.
As for other businesses using such a system, just because you can't imagine anyone else using it doesn't mean they don't - or won't - exist. It's shortsighted comments like that which lead to stifling innovation. And you're wrong anyway, here's a few other internet companies off the top of my head that could probably benefit by implementing such an all-you-can-eat shipping service: overstock.com, buy.com, thinkgeek.com, staples.com...... Get the picture? Any online store with a diverse range of products and customers who use them for repeat purchases could use this.
Also, depending on how this patent is worded Netflix could be infringing. After all, you pay one fee for the service and can ship 1 to X DVDs per month with no extra shipping charges. Hell, I'll bet Netflix is one of the first companies Amazon would go after for infringement if this patent is accepted.
where a "minor innovation" is protected for a short period of time so that its creators can get some benefit from being the first to do it. 6-12 months would be sufficient
In a capitalist society we call this window of protection "first to market".
Seriously, there's not need to create ANOTHER class of patents when the current system is in such obvious shambles. Such a "short-term" patent would also likely be abused heavily, with the patent owner adding small tweaks just before the expiration term to magically extend it, or something similar. Obviously available expoits would depend on the rules for such a patent class, but do you really trust those to be written well given how the current system is working? Again, no need for this, if you implement it first it will likely take your competitors about 6 months to reverse engineer and adapt to offering the same thing, no special short-term protections needed in that case.
I can't believe none of the previous replies said it, so I guess I'll have to: RTFA. It specifically mentions that someone will be on the moon with this stuff, it will not be at an unmanned base....
I was trying to get modded funny, but got insightful instead, figures. But in any case I did RTFA, and I have read other articles like it. And the only way that the staffed moon base concept works is if they are self-sufficient either perpetually or for very long periods of time, on the order of years. If there is an ELE (Extinction Level Event) or massive plague on Earth such that using such a genetic seed bank would be necessary then it stands to reason that the planet would not be ready for "reseeding" in any short amount of time. Also, depending on the nature of the event, the ground support staff, facilities, etc may not be around or usable anymore to aid in landing or deployment or any of that. So even if it's a manned lunar base, they still have to sit around with likely no help from earth until it's safe to return and begin work, and their landing support or runway may not even exist. So the moon base seems very unlikely, or at the very least a far far future scenario.
As for the artic regions base, similar problems exist, it's unlikely we'd set up a long term permanent human presence there that would be self sustaining and able to return to civilization w/o some outside help, even if that help is just waiting for an icebreaker boat to make it's way to the port near the base. Assuming we had to send a group of survivors to the artic region to retrieve the stuff, they'd need to be experienced in navigating, hiking, extreme cold climate survival, etc etc. Again, if a large swath of humanity has been destroyed, the likelihood of getting together a team with all those skills diminishes greatly.
The only way this works is if there's either an autonomous (ie self sustaining) group of people to execute the reseeding, or if the process is automated. OK, sure, there are less devastating scenarios where the currently proposed gene bank would still work without getting that complicated, but what's the point of building the whole thing if it isn't going to be accessible or useful after a BIG event like an asteroid strike or nuclear war? I liked the idea that another reply had about automating an unmanned moonbase to work on a watchdog timer. No reset signal from earth in X time triggers it to begin some process to reseed earth, but even then without the system being capable of fully evaluating the situation it may just waste everything by landing at some ground zero, or deploying before the atmosphere is clear yet or whatever. Genetic seed banks need to be widely distributed, relatively easily accessible, run on renewable/redundent power sources, and come with a manual that a 3rd grader could operate from. In the event of a disaster so bad we need to use the banks, we have to assume the scientists and engineers that created the system may very well not be around to help us use it.
I agree those are all good examples of TERRIBLE patents and none should have been granted in the first place. For the record, though, the Swinging on a Swing patent had all of it's claims overturned on review after many people complained.
of the whole "genetic seed bank" concept is that the two most suggested locations are near one of earth's poles or somewhere in space/on the moon. Brilliant! Because as we all know, when a doomsday scenario kills off a huge percentage of the population, the specialized skillsets required to retrieve those samples are possesed by all, right?
Survivor 1: "Wow, that asteroid destroyed 95% of life here on Earth, but now that the dust has settled we can open the genetic vault and start anew! Now just where did we stick those samples?"
Survivor 2: "Uh, on the moon I think."
Survivor 1: "Oh, how convenient." [cries]
Hm, what the hell is this line right here on my insurance policy that says "Theft" then?
But the arguments are not that ALL DRM or RFID uses are bad. No one at the EFF is saying warehouses need to stop doing whole-pallet inventory tracking with the systems. What they are against is the current systems that actually can be harmful. e.g. RFID in passports - whether they have a foil cover or not, fact is they can be sniped and contain too much sensitive info, there are better ways to implement that. For DRM they are against proprietary systems that do an end-run around fair use rights by things like the DMCA. The EFF is not advocating the wholesale dismantling of these technologies, but rather the abuses of them by large corporations.
And btw you need to do a bit more reading on RFID because your simple view of them is both limited and wrong. If anything they read LESS reliably than barcodes for various intereference reasons, whereas a barcode that's not smudged will scan when you point the laser at it everytime. And they do a LOT more than just hold a number to a DB somewhere. It's good tech, I love it, I hope it becomes ubiquitous, but only in a responsible way. I should not be identifiable in public to marketing booths with scanners that can tie every RFID'd item of clothing on my body to those purchases. It could literally lead to the Minority Report scene where every ad you walk past asks you how those gap jeans you just bought are working out and did you need socks with that? And other abuses to boot that people haven't even thought of. Your black and white view of the EFF is your decision to make, but it's an oversimplification.
While it may be true that in the short term it could benefit the EFF and/or Make, part of the reason they use codes like that is as a tracking metric. That metric will be skewed as a result of this, thus giving them bad data for future deals. Luckily due to the somewhat buried nature of the post it probably won't be more than a statistical blip, but a little chiding may prevent the OP from making that mistake again. ;)
really make sure was a high-quality game that provided the action experience that you'd expect from a Star Wars game
Except that that was exactly NOT what the large installed base expected. What they expected was tweaks to the system they were currently enjoying, not having the carpet yanked from under their feet. What is it about Sony that even after decades of failed proprietary formats and software gaffs they still think they know better than the user what the user wants?
Very excellent advice. Your worry about cashing out longer term CDs is unwarranted though as long as you get a bank wiht a reasonable withdrawal penalty. I set up my first CD ladder exactly one year ago and I now have 4 CDs that revolve every 3 months, and I'm going to add four more to an offset 3 month cycle again this year, eventually I aim to have one CD come due every month, then I'll start staggering years so eventually I'll have the longest term CDs and still have them come due every few months.
But enough of my scheme, my point to you was check out ING Direct because there are NO minimums, high returns, and no matter what the CD term is it's only a 3 month interest penalty. So whether you break your 12 month, or your 60 month CD you will only lose 3 months interest, and only lose part of the principal if you cash out the CD before the first 3 months are up. If you believe that you'll be able to keep your hands off the CDs for at least 3 months (and with 3 months living expenses as you say then you're already set) then you have nothing to fear. Take an hour today, set up those CDs you're putting off. Trust me, you'll feel better and be much better off. I'm sure other banks have similar good deals, I just like ING. Also they gave me a 0.30% bonus APY to any CDs I roll over after being with them for a year, not a bad deal at all.
I agree, pick a school that will teach you not just how to do 'X' but how to adapt, learn, and develop a methodology that makes you capable of doing just about anything. Anyone with a textbook (or hell a good tutorial website) and some opensource software can learn to program. It takes a quailty environment and good teachers to show you how to actually think. Now that being said, no matter where you go the onus is on YOU to learn. You could very well get the same from an education that costs half as much as the A+ #1 college, but you have to work hard and actively pursue your education [everywhere]. So don't just sit there and learn by osmosis, learn some critical thinking and problem solving skills and you'll be set to do anything in your field of choice.
;)
And as for the actual topic of college financial advice: Put all your extra cash in an ING account: no minimums, nearly the highest yield for savings accounts (see HSBC or Emigrant Direct for the usual highest 2), quick access to your money, easy online interface and secure + FDIC insured. The real bonus of using ING though is the high yield no-minimum CD (Certificate of Deposit) accounts. For a college kid you want safety, access, and a reasonable return. Break your money into 20% chunks, one of them keep in the regular savings. The other four gradually invest in 12 month CDs (ING is about 5.25% APY right now), a new one every 3 months set to auto-renew to a 12 month CD, auto-reinvest the interest earned. This is called a CD ladder. Now every 3 months you have penalty free access to part of your inital egg plus interest, and if you ever need all the money it's only a 3 month interest penatly, which lets face it, for emergency use isn't a big hit, especially if the one you cash out has been around for more than 3 months already.
And live like a cheap slob, now's the time you can get away with it and save some cash that way as well.
Your sarcasm is both delicious and spot-on. Interstingly enough this now means that the maximum punishment for putting a single word into the code for a page that must then be picked up by a search engine, searched for, clicked on, and NOT closed by the viewing child - is now more severe than say, running up to the same child in public and flashing them repeatedly. Does this even begin to make sense? The worst part is, if some congresscritter were to actually agree that this is obviously a disconnect in punishments, their solution would most likely be to simply amplify all other punishments to fix the distortion. Can we just go ahead and skip directly to the Judge Dredd future where alleged criminals are shot in the head where they stand to save time and money? After all, it's FOR THE CHILDREN.
While I appreciate that you ostensibly got this response because you donated to the EFF, you just gave out the Make discount code for free to all the people who may not have donated. That sort of negates the point of the discount being a reward for people who have supported the foundation. Next time think a little bit before you hit CTRL-V.
To others who read your post, I would urge you to actually donate something to the EFF if you intend to use that Make discount code.
I only agree with about half the stuff the EFF does. Not enough to earn my money, sorry.
Nice pessimistic view there, and I say that with a straight face despite my sig line. I think what you're forgetting is that the OTHER half of the stuff they do, that you DO support, is not being done by any other group. So go ahead, let your dislike of some of their fights keep you from supporting any of the other good that they are the only ones doing.
Mmmmmm fusion shrimp. The only shrimp that cooks itself!
in this case the flight of the kite is a false positive in the context of 'something floating' - because a kite does not float. (In any scientific usage of the word 'float'.)
Arguing semantics aside, replace 'kite' with 'balloon' and his analogy is true, AND meets your pedantic requirement of the definition of "float".
You are still correct that the problem of reproducibility stems from a poor description of the experiment, but playing devil's advocate for a moment, who's to say this is not what's plaguing the bubble fusion experiements?
It may well be that the scientists that are getting positive results are describing the conditions and steps of the experiment perfectly to their knowledge, but there is some other, unknown, condition that needs to be met for the experiement to be successful. Does this mean that every time someone fails to reproduce positive results it is a strike against the original theory? No, by your own admission, it could simply be a lack of complete information. Maybe it only works when a weak electromagnetic field is present, provided by the lighting in one lab and not present in the labs of others. Although the kite analogy may not be perfect, it pretty much illustrates the GP poster's point - failing to reproduce the experiment does not disprove the theory, that may be as simple as incompetance. On must demonstrate that the original results were incorrect or impossible.
So if I whipe the powder mustache off of my upper lip before the cop taps on the window, that means I never snorted?
No, you missed his point entirely. If IBM deleted this code from their source tree, it wouldn't matter since if it infact is part of the linux system then any other source code copy in the wild would still have it. IBM may have in actuality deleted obsolete or unused code from their dev tree, SCO is trying to point to that and say "Aha! destroying evidence!" but they could easily prove if the deleted materials were the smoking gun they were looking for by simply grabbing the supposed Linux build that the code would have been part of from some archive somewhere. And if no such copy of Linux exists - or hell even if it *was* SCO code but never made it into a Linux release - then there still isn't any copyright infringement because it was never copied into any product!
To fix your analogy, if you wipe the powder mustache from the powdered donut you were eating that you got from the bakery down the street and the cop taps on your window, then it doesn't matter if you snorted powdered sugar or not because it's demonstrably not an illicit substance. You can't prosecute someone for copyright infringement (SCO's point with the case) if they didn't actually, y'know, make any copies!
Hah! Hot damn man, that's a lot of hours. You wouldn't happen to be Alliance on Steamwheedle Cartel would you? Sure could use someone with that sort of dedication to run some instances with.....
If you are by random chance on that server send a note over to Gunthorp!
I've barely had time for a life, let alone other video games. That reminds me, guess I'd better cancel that XBox Live account so I can funnel the subscription fee into next month's WOW fee....
Agreed. Although IANAL, given what I have seen of his communications which get posted online from time to time I can't believe that there hasn't been enough evidence yet to get him disbarred. Whenever his logic is torn asunder by an opponent he is quick to revert to little more than "OMG STFU or I'll sue you!" He relies on his position as a lawyer to bully or intimidate others into either agreeing with him or keeping quiet. If nothing else don't state bar associations have rules regarding general conduct under which they could remove his right to practice?
I also wonder about his motivations. His stance against video games verges on psychotic at times. What happened Jack? Were you molested by an Atari as a child? Never got that ColecoVision you so desperately wanted for Christmas and so are taking your vengence out on all the other kids? Or is he planning on running for senator under the "I saved every child in the world from the video game horror" banner? It's like he lives and breathes destroying an entire industry, he won't be happy until we're playing pong with anti-alias blurred paddle graphics because the original versions too closely resemble a phallus. :P