I'm sure if someone started a business selling jailbroken phones or jailbreaking software, apple would go after them. But they've shown no signs of going after individuals who jailbreak their phones, nor after individuals who try to install OS X on their non-Apple hardware.
It's engaging in "artistic megalomania" and that is bullshit whether it's legal or not.
Hear hear. I don't agree with you, but that statement at least lends itself to debate, rather than, "It's anti-competitive because I say it is."
My personal feeling about Apple is that while their T&C might be unacceptable to some, it's within their rights to state their position. And it's also right that they don't go after individuals for violating that license and building their own hackintoshes. But I think it's right for them to go after businesses which profit specifically off of violating their T&C.
If you figure out how to make a hackintosh, go for it. They won't support you, but that's their right. If you tell a friend, well, they won't love you, but they probably won't sue you. If you publish the instructions on the web, they will probably issue a take-down notice--this is the only area that's grey for me. And if you sell tools to break their license, they'll go after you tooth and nail.
It may be bullshit in theory, but in practice, it only affects people who are having a tangible impact on their bottom line.
The business could just do free wifi w/the info on the "accept" page
I've pushed just this idea on a few businesses. For a relatively low fixed rate, any storefront could get timely advertisements out passersby who need a wifi internet connection and who might just be interested in their products/ services. Win win for everyone.
Actually, it's not so much a function of telling people about a product or service that they didn't know existed, but rather one of convincing people that they need a product they didn't know they needed. It's a subtle but important difference.
Oh, and it's funny, I'm probably related to her, at some distance, via my wife. The Crabtrees in the US apparently all come from one lineage, and the closest one is something like a great-great grandparent. Through them, we're also connected to the Grammars ("Frasier"), again, at some distance.
We've got some portraits on the wall of a pair of Crabtrees who are apparently also ancestors of "Frasier". Not a handsome people, them. The portraits are given out as a wedding gift from the geneologist of the family to the newly-wed, and so are hung proudly--and referred to as "The Gruesomes" in dozens of homes around this fair country of ours.
I've looked through RFC822, and the inclusion of "+" in an email is not excluded, so it's perfectly legal. GMail's functional use of it, however (account+foo@gmail.com and account+bar@gmail.com both go to account@gmail.com, for easy tagging/filing) is just an implementation that takes advantage of the fact that most people do not have + signs in their email addresses.
The RFC is actually pretty promiscuous; it's only implementations of it that fall short. Did you know that apostrophes are legal in the username portion of the email address? Yet how many web sites do you think would allow you to sign up as "First_O'Last@mailserver.net"? Heck; it's amazing how many sites forbid the '+' sign that Google takes advantage of.
Bush and Cheney were secretly planning to ruin the economy
No, they didn't want to ruin the economy; they just wanted to concentrate greater wealth into the hands of fewer people. They don't see that as the ruination of the economy, since those with wealth continue to live in comfort as long as things don't get quite bad enough for a revolution.
Bush's"tax cuts to the rich" (I got a tax cut. I had no idea that 50k/yr made you rich!)
Depends on where you are and who you're comparing yourself to. But in most places outside the SF Bay Area and NYC, 50k/yr makes you pretty comfortably middle class unless you've got a mess of kids and you've bought more house than you can afford.
But the 3% or so that you saved translates to no more than $1500/year of tax reduction for you. It's something, but not a lot. Now, give that same 3% tax break to someone who's pulling down 100 million dollars per year, and suddenly you've left up to $3M in the pockets of one household. And that's not even considering all the other tax breaks that wealthier people have access to.
And the thing to think about here is the tipping point, the point where, for most Americans, an extra $100 a month is the difference between falling behind and getting ahead. Or the difference between saving for your kid's education or hoping for a scholarship. Or buying those new brake pads or waiting a month or two. $1500 a year in savings for a middle class person might make a more substantive difference in their daily lives than the $3M would for the person brining in $100M per year. Except for the principle of the matter, the richer person wouldn't even notice it.
And that's the core of why people complain about Reagan and Bush's "tax cuts for the wealthy". It's not that they didn't benefit a substantial number of average people in some way--they did. But they provided a windfall for the sector of society that simply did not need it, and with all the lost tax revenue, services for those who are the most in need of them have been repeatedly cut. Public schools, mental health institutions, scientific research, even our national parks have had to scale back services, privatize and focus on profits instead of their core goals, to what has been--I feel--the detriment of society.
I don't think that everything is the fault of any individual executive, but the POTUS does indeed set the agenda; tax cuts were one of Bush's mantra through the whole of his eight years. Combine that with a completely unbalanced budget, two major wars and the continuation of 30 years of removing checks on the banking industry, and the current economic situation was completely predictable.
I think the process of concentration of wealth within a society is not a bad thing overall, but when it gets to a certain point, it becomes difficult for that society to continue to grow and prosper, as there are so many people struggling to get by, surviving at the effective whims of the wealthiest classes. I say treat it like a game: Look! These people won. Now start over and redistribute everything and you get to play again. Think about it. How much fun would a game of Monopoly be if the winner from the last round got to start the next game with all of his or her holdings?
I don't believe in revolutions; they're too bloody. But bloodless redistribution of wealth is possible. It can be done through taxes, or the wealthy can just man up an let go of 90% of their holdings. Rich people don't need money; they'll get rich again. Look at Don Trump: it wasn't that long ago that he was over $100M under water, but that didn't stop him.
Off topic, but FYI, I'm pretty sure the opposite of "inept" is "apt" (as in "apt pupil"), not "ept". "Competent" might be even better, but at least "apt" is a word, which "ept", sadly, is not.
To be fair, what you're doing is almost a Godwin. The huge majority of what Congress does pales in comparison in many ways when put next to wars, and even health care. But many of those things need to be considered, even with bigger, more important things going on.
If you support or decry this proposed law, do so on its own merits. Otherwise, we may as well compare everything to the wars and to healthcare, and ignore a huge range of very real issues which need resolution.
This comment is worded exactly as intended, although it contains inaccuracies. Any lame "Fixed that for you" jokes will not be modded into oblivion, as I have no mod rights on threads where I've posted.
Oh, and back then, Internet email wasn't always easy to send. I had a friend at Mt. Holyoke, and to email her, I had to send to [her_name]%holyoke.edu@gateway.riverside.edu.
And if you wanted to email someone who was on a BBS (say, 'BBS-X') which wasn't connected directly to the Internet, but got their feed through another BBS (say, 'BBS-Y'), the address would look like: BBS-Y!BBS-X!user@somerandomgateway.com.
Kids these days! This last August, I celebrated 20 years since my first Internet access account. Pre-web, we used things like "tin", "nn" and "rn" to get our "newsgroups", and "Gopher" to gain access to all sorts of amazing data worldwide via links rather than that outdated FTP system. Oh, and we had IM; we just called it IRC. In a way, IRC was a lot like a stateless version of Twitter, too.
So why, exactly, do all final images have to be in a rectangle? I want to make my image in a rough hexagon shape. Or a star or circle.
And why do all of the pixels have to be connected sequentialy? Maybe I have an image I want to make that has a lot of white space, so I build it on a white table that is sparsely populated, but a picture nonetheless.
Hell, maybe I want to stand some of the pieces on their sides, to add a delicate interplay of light and shadow. Or stack some of them in various vertical formations.
I can't prove that it's infinite, but I bet you a shiny new penny that for every finite set of combinations you can describe, I can come up with one more idea.
I know, I'll mount the pieces on little chunks of styrofoam and float them on top of a koi pond in to which I've put 300 scuba diver toys, leave and let the toys re-arrange the pieces randomly, come back and take a picture. I'll bet that combination won't be one of your 1.143*10^796.
The only impressive re-use of a concrete silo structure I have seen is a retrofit into a rock-climbing gym
I guess it's not exactly a silo, but the old reactor housing from the Cherokee Nuclear Power Plant was used to film the underwater scenes in The Abyss. I'd say that is a pretty impressive re-use of a similar, although much, much bigger structure. The linked picture shows Deep Core high and dry, but they filled that mofo with a gazillion gallons of water, and then to make it look darker and deeper, they poured something like 2 gazillion little styrofoam pellets on the surface to block out the majority of the light.
Back at my first ISP job, we had a server that was responsible for processing USENET which was named Colossus, as a reference to the film.
Man, those were the days. I remember when it couldn't keep up with the volume of newsfeeds because it had to swap too much to the HD, which of course was a huge bottleneck. So we spent thousands (tens of?) on a 100 MB RAM-based drive to handle the system's swap partition. Took a day's worth of processing down from 28+ hours down to 4-5.
And it was worth it, too. At that time, we were the nation's number one dial-up UUCP provider, and there were huge numbers of BBSs that would complain any time that their feeds did not appear to be up-to-date to within an hour.
Slashdot Mirror
I pictured a paraplegic mechanic saying, "She's a real beaut! Last of the V8's! Woulda been a shame to blow 'er up..."
I'm sure if someone started a business selling jailbroken phones or jailbreaking software, apple would go after them. But they've shown no signs of going after individuals who jailbreak their phones, nor after individuals who try to install OS X on their non-Apple hardware.
It's engaging in "artistic megalomania" and that is bullshit whether it's legal or not.
Hear hear. I don't agree with you, but that statement at least lends itself to debate, rather than, "It's anti-competitive because I say it is."
My personal feeling about Apple is that while their T&C might be unacceptable to some, it's within their rights to state their position. And it's also right that they don't go after individuals for violating that license and building their own hackintoshes. But I think it's right for them to go after businesses which profit specifically off of violating their T&C.
If you figure out how to make a hackintosh, go for it. They won't support you, but that's their right. If you tell a friend, well, they won't love you, but they probably won't sue you. If you publish the instructions on the web, they will probably issue a take-down notice--this is the only area that's grey for me. And if you sell tools to break their license, they'll go after you tooth and nail.
It may be bullshit in theory, but in practice, it only affects people who are having a tangible impact on their bottom line.
The business could just do free wifi w/the info on the "accept" page
I've pushed just this idea on a few businesses. For a relatively low fixed rate, any storefront could get timely advertisements out passersby who need a wifi internet connection and who might just be interested in their products/ services. Win win for everyone.
Actually, it's not so much a function of telling people about a product or service that they didn't know existed, but rather one of convincing people that they need a product they didn't know they needed. It's a subtle but important difference.
Oh, and it's funny, I'm probably related to her, at some distance, via my wife. The Crabtrees in the US apparently all come from one lineage, and the closest one is something like a great-great grandparent. Through them, we're also connected to the Grammars ("Frasier"), again, at some distance.
We've got some portraits on the wall of a pair of Crabtrees who are apparently also ancestors of "Frasier". Not a handsome people, them. The portraits are given out as a wedding gift from the geneologist of the family to the newly-wed, and so are hung proudly--and referred to as "The Gruesomes" in dozens of homes around this fair country of ours.
A 3-digit salary? I could earn that collecting soda cans.
I've looked through RFC822, and the inclusion of "+" in an email is not excluded, so it's perfectly legal. GMail's functional use of it, however (account+foo@gmail.com and account+bar@gmail.com both go to account@gmail.com, for easy tagging/filing) is just an implementation that takes advantage of the fact that most people do not have + signs in their email addresses.
The RFC is actually pretty promiscuous; it's only implementations of it that fall short. Did you know that apostrophes are legal in the username portion of the email address? Yet how many web sites do you think would allow you to sign up as "First_O'Last@mailserver.net"? Heck; it's amazing how many sites forbid the '+' sign that Google takes advantage of.
Bush and Cheney were secretly planning to ruin the economy
No, they didn't want to ruin the economy; they just wanted to concentrate greater wealth into the hands of fewer people. They don't see that as the ruination of the economy, since those with wealth continue to live in comfort as long as things don't get quite bad enough for a revolution.
Bush's"tax cuts to the rich" (I got a tax cut. I had no idea that 50k/yr made you rich!)
Depends on where you are and who you're comparing yourself to. But in most places outside the SF Bay Area and NYC, 50k/yr makes you pretty comfortably middle class unless you've got a mess of kids and you've bought more house than you can afford.
But the 3% or so that you saved translates to no more than $1500/year of tax reduction for you. It's something, but not a lot. Now, give that same 3% tax break to someone who's pulling down 100 million dollars per year, and suddenly you've left up to $3M in the pockets of one household. And that's not even considering all the other tax breaks that wealthier people have access to.
And the thing to think about here is the tipping point, the point where, for most Americans, an extra $100 a month is the difference between falling behind and getting ahead. Or the difference between saving for your kid's education or hoping for a scholarship. Or buying those new brake pads or waiting a month or two. $1500 a year in savings for a middle class person might make a more substantive difference in their daily lives than the $3M would for the person brining in $100M per year. Except for the principle of the matter, the richer person wouldn't even notice it.
And that's the core of why people complain about Reagan and Bush's "tax cuts for the wealthy". It's not that they didn't benefit a substantial number of average people in some way--they did. But they provided a windfall for the sector of society that simply did not need it, and with all the lost tax revenue, services for those who are the most in need of them have been repeatedly cut. Public schools, mental health institutions, scientific research, even our national parks have had to scale back services, privatize and focus on profits instead of their core goals, to what has been--I feel--the detriment of society.
I don't think that everything is the fault of any individual executive, but the POTUS does indeed set the agenda; tax cuts were one of Bush's mantra through the whole of his eight years. Combine that with a completely unbalanced budget, two major wars and the continuation of 30 years of removing checks on the banking industry, and the current economic situation was completely predictable.
I think the process of concentration of wealth within a society is not a bad thing overall, but when it gets to a certain point, it becomes difficult for that society to continue to grow and prosper, as there are so many people struggling to get by, surviving at the effective whims of the wealthiest classes. I say treat it like a game: Look! These people won. Now start over and redistribute everything and you get to play again. Think about it. How much fun would a game of Monopoly be if the winner from the last round got to start the next game with all of his or her holdings?
I don't believe in revolutions; they're too bloody. But bloodless redistribution of wealth is possible. It can be done through taxes, or the wealthy can just man up an let go of 90% of their holdings. Rich people don't need money; they'll get rich again. Look at Don Trump: it wasn't that long ago that he was over $100M under water, but that didn't stop him.
Off topic, but FYI, I'm pretty sure the opposite of "inept" is "apt" (as in "apt pupil"), not "ept". "Competent" might be even better, but at least "apt" is a word, which "ept", sadly, is not.
To be fair, what you're doing is almost a Godwin. The huge majority of what Congress does pales in comparison in many ways when put next to wars, and even health care. But many of those things need to be considered, even with bigger, more important things going on.
If you support or decry this proposed law, do so on its own merits. Otherwise, we may as well compare everything to the wars and to healthcare, and ignore a huge range of very real issues which need resolution.
This comment is worded exactly as intended, although it contains inaccuracies. Any lame "Fixed that for you" jokes will not be modded into oblivion, as I have no mod rights on threads where I've posted.
There. Fixed that for you.
Will it be a free drink? Or does the preceding '$' indicate they will have to pay for it? Using variable notation gives you plausible deniability...
Oh, and back then, Internet email wasn't always easy to send. I had a friend at Mt. Holyoke, and to email her, I had to send to [her_name]%holyoke.edu@gateway.riverside.edu.
And if you wanted to email someone who was on a BBS (say, 'BBS-X') which wasn't connected directly to the Internet, but got their feed through another BBS (say, 'BBS-Y'), the address would look like: BBS-Y!BBS-X!user@somerandomgateway.com.
Back then, you had to EARN your email.
Kids these days! This last August, I celebrated 20 years since my first Internet access account. Pre-web, we used things like "tin", "nn" and "rn" to get our "newsgroups", and "Gopher" to gain access to all sorts of amazing data worldwide via links rather than that outdated FTP system. Oh, and we had IM; we just called it IRC. In a way, IRC was a lot like a stateless version of Twitter, too.
Sigh.
Clearly you weren't the only one who didn't find it amusing. Not even a single "funny" mod point. Sigh.
Somehow, it doesn't have the same ring to it.
Better ask Paul. (see sig)
Better call Saul.
So why, exactly, do all final images have to be in a rectangle? I want to make my image in a rough hexagon shape. Or a star or circle.
And why do all of the pixels have to be connected sequentialy? Maybe I have an image I want to make that has a lot of white space, so I build it on a white table that is sparsely populated, but a picture nonetheless.
Hell, maybe I want to stand some of the pieces on their sides, to add a delicate interplay of light and shadow. Or stack some of them in various vertical formations.
I can't prove that it's infinite, but I bet you a shiny new penny that for every finite set of combinations you can describe, I can come up with one more idea.
I know, I'll mount the pieces on little chunks of styrofoam and float them on top of a koi pond in to which I've put 300 scuba diver toys, leave and let the toys re-arrange the pieces randomly, come back and take a picture. I'll bet that combination won't be one of your 1.143*10^796.
Hey, that's the key for BluRay disks! You better take that down before the MPAA comes after you.
The only impressive re-use of a concrete silo structure I have seen is a retrofit into a rock-climbing gym
I guess it's not exactly a silo, but the old reactor housing from the Cherokee Nuclear Power Plant was used to film the underwater scenes in The Abyss. I'd say that is a pretty impressive re-use of a similar, although much, much bigger structure. The linked picture shows Deep Core high and dry, but they filled that mofo with a gazillion gallons of water, and then to make it look darker and deeper, they poured something like 2 gazillion little styrofoam pellets on the surface to block out the majority of the light.
Back at my first ISP job, we had a server that was responsible for processing USENET which was named Colossus, as a reference to the film.
Man, those were the days. I remember when it couldn't keep up with the volume of newsfeeds because it had to swap too much to the HD, which of course was a huge bottleneck. So we spent thousands (tens of?) on a 100 MB RAM-based drive to handle the system's swap partition. Took a day's worth of processing down from 28+ hours down to 4-5.
And it was worth it, too. At that time, we were the nation's number one dial-up UUCP provider, and there were huge numbers of BBSs that would complain any time that their feeds did not appear to be up-to-date to within an hour.
Man, I feel old.
Best. Simpsons. Reference. Ever!
“He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone..." - Jesus