Read the article. Read the full judgement that is linked in the article. Pay specific attention to the part when the Judge sums up his findings on Independent Creation and the fact that the defendants dropped any claim that their image was designed independently.
Jesus, for a guy who doesn't care what I think, you seem a little wound up...
Well, I remember during SCO that Linus said that if there was any infringing code, to tell them and they'd just rewrite it. Unless photos follow different rules, this would seem to indicate that a case can be made that the code couldn't be rewritten from scratch to avoid copyright, because it was written to do the same thing the infringing code was doing. Thus not designed independently.
And yet Apple couldn't manufacture iPhones in the US because they couldn't afford the extra $49 it would cost to make iPhones here. It might shave a few millions off of those billions. Can't have that happen!
I believe the quote was actually $65 dollars, but what is more important, a nine month delay. I think the major point was not that China was cheaper, but that they could do it now, while the USA would take time. Meanwhile, all the other American computer companies would still be using China as they are now. Besides, those assembly jobs really aren't important. If they were assembled here, we wouldn't have lots of low income workers assembling them, we'd have lots of machines assembling them. If you really want to bitch about bringing jobs to the US, you should be bitching about the higher paying jobs manufacturing the parts that get shipped to China to be assembled by the workers for a Tiawanese company. Hand assembling is right up there with washing dishes (which are all currently taken by Mexicans because Americans don't want those jobs). If you want to help America, bring the transistor and electronics manufacuring that require highly skilled workers back to the US.
The only reason a company wants market share is so you can leverage it to get the profits by getting people to buy your stuff and developers to make programs for it. So Apple is definately winning over Microsoft and the other cell phone makers. With Linux, it's a bit different because supposedly if everybody was using OS software, there wouldn't have to be any profits to be considered a win as getting people to use OS software is the goal, not profits. So, right now, Apple is getting the profits in the phone business while Linux is getting the market share and can use it for getting more OS programs and support. In effect, both Apple and Linux are currently winning because they are after different things.
We don't have to wonder. She was a blond Moldovan. BBC has pictures of her, description of the dinner, and things that the authorities are asking her. She is apparently defending the captain.
I don't buy that. Staying on the ship in fair seas and close to shore to see passengers evacuated *is* just doing your job and is in no way being a hero. It's something I would expect him to do, if for no other reason, from the guilt of knowing he was solely responsible for the disaster in the first place.
If nothing else, having given the command the was sinking a multi-million dollar ship that was under his command, he should have been trying to act the hero to cover his ass. Surely he knew there would be an inquiry and could figure that ever little thing would be looked at in that inquiry. He was not in any danger staying on the ship. Even if everything was going well and passengers were all off, you'd think he would have stayed on board just for appearance sake. That way when the inquiry hit, he could have stated he was being the hero and making sure that the safety of the passengers and crew were his first consideration even if he was really just standing around doing nothing.
Well, he was asking what it would take to terraform Mars. I'm not one to be messing with somebodies assumed setting for a game they want to run, but if you ask such a question to a physics geek, don't be surprised when they give you an answer.
Yeah, I don't think any of those actually calculated how many trillions of tons of ice comets they'd have to divert into Mars to make oceans and whatever their fantasy scenario involves.
I did that once on an RPG forum. I think I was just giving Mars an Earth-like atmospheric pressure from local carbon dioxide and comets assumed to be about the size of Haley's (assumed to all be made of frozen gasses) from someplace in the Kuniper Belt. Anyway, just to get those comets to Mars in ten years would require the total energy output of the sun for three days. Then I started figuring out how big the solar panels would have to be at a really good efficiency and how long they would have to be there to gather that energy. Then there was the question of the mass of those solar panels and where it all came from the the energy needed to construct them. Ya, mindboggling stuff that isn't getting done in our greatgrandchild's time even if we all worked on getting it done from now on. It sort of blew the OPs idea of a near current terraformed Mars right out of the water.
I'm not sure New Mexico can get any wider--it's borders are set along latitude and longitude lines. So it's more likely that Albuquerque will eventually end up in Arizona and Santa Fe will end up in Texas.
Unless New Mexico was gaining altitude. As the r to the earths center grew, so would the distance between the two state lines while staying at the same latitude and longitude lines.
Bananas! We may very well see the extinction of bananas in the near future. We bred all the seeds out of them and we grow only one kind.
Well, Americans only eat one kind, the Cavendish. We used to eat the Gross Mike ("Big Mike") until such a blight did kill them off. There are plenty of other bananas, but they are typically starchy and not what an American thinks of as a banana. However, even if the Cavendish does get wiped out, there is apparently another banana ready to take it's place, but it has a more apple flavor to it. In a generation nobody will know, just as we now only have reports that Gross Mike tasted much better than the Cavendish.
The Soviet Union did do a lot of the work in defeating the Nazis. The Eastern Front was where most of the actions was, however, they were receiving lots of aid from the US, Britain and Canada. 15% of their tanks were Shermans. 20% of their fighters and bombers were also from the Lend Lease. Something like 80% of their trucks were American made. Then, there is the artillery, submachine guns and millions of tons of non-military goods shipped to the USSR.
From Wikipedia on Lend Lease Act:
'Joseph Stalin, during the Tehran Conference in 1943, acknowledged publicly the importance of American efforts during a dinner at the conference: "Without American production the United Nations could never have won the war."'[18]
If somebody with the power to look at my email really wants it, I just have to ask myself this one question: "Do I really want to get hit with a wrench in the face until I give up the encryption key?"
What about all the companies that use older versions of IE because of compatibility with their own proprietary web applications?
They'll probably do the same thing they did in the brief time that IE8 was an automatic update, release an app that we can run that will prevent the automatic update from happening.
Please, just give up, you are making yourself look more and more ignorant. You are fixated on the US usage of the word "State" and think this implies that an EU country must be part of a greater "United States of Europe". It simply does not mean that in this context
Not yet. Give it 200 years and a couple of crises to go through, then get back on the subject. With entangled economies, currencies, and therefore militaries, and no borders to speak of, it's just a matter of time as things start binding the EU together as these United States ended up being bound together even though they started out fairly autonomous.
With those managers I feel I can talk to, I often explain that what they really want is a situation where their IT folks are playing video games in the back office. If the IT guys have time to play games, the managers aren't hearing complaints, and work is all getting done, then everything is running fine and when something does go wrong or a project needs to be done, your IT is free to actually get to work right then. If your IT staff is always busy and using all it's resources, then when more resources are needed (and they always will be and it's always an emergency), you are left understaffed and with stuff not getting done.
"Call on our support contracts," shout the bosses! So now your on-site staff are all on hold instead of troubleshooting.
Oh yes, this sounds familiar. The time given before we were supposed to start downtime procedures was shorter than the time it took to troubleshoot to make sure that the system was even down (or at least what part was down). Initiating downtime procedures took about half and hour to get everything switched over and bring everybody up to speed. The usual troubleshoot and fix took fifteen minutes. So we were effectively ordered to make every downtime a 45 minute downtime (more if you include rolling back off downtime procedures and cleanup) when most (90% as it was almost always the same re-occuring issue) could have been 15 minute downtimes.
Sometimes great leaders are drafted from the ranks, and George Washington was one of those. Essentially he was drafted out of retirement to gain fame and respect during the war. He was living a rather comfortable aristocratic (1%) life in semi-retirement when he took up the cause of the american revolution.
Yes, he did go home and complain how they nominated him to lead the revolutionary armies. It could have had something to do with him showing up to said meeting in full uniform with all his medals prominately displayed. Even then, there is a strong feeling that he was such a shoe in for our first leader, because he had no heirs. Nobody wanted a dynasty put into place, and it was a fear with at least one of the founding fathers suggesting we should have a king (IIRC). With no heirs, there would be no dynasty or family taking over the country as a defacto king. Therefore, everybody was for George who was probably sterile from the mumps earlier in life. Thus he ruled for almost 25 years from 1975 to 1999 as the leader of the revolutionary army, the president under the Articles of Confederation, and the United States. By that time, everybody was more comfortable with the idea of a President and we had gone through a major crisis.
Don't kid yourself, fiscal conservatism really doesn't play into American politics. For most, fiscal conservative means spend money where I want it spent or "cut off money to socially liberal programs." Take the Tea Party for example, they state they want responsible economic policy for the US, and that sounds great. Sign me up. Then you ask how they plan to do that and the crazy comes out. Usually this involves getting rid of the government programs they don't like such as welfare, the EPA, Department of Education, etc. None of them seem to realize that we could get rid of all of our branches of the government and stop paying any government salaries, but until you cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the military, and the interest on our debt, that wouldn't even balance the budget.
As for a third social-liberal/fiscal-conservative party, it really just won't work because of how US politics operates. The current two parties don't really stand for anything. As most US elections are winner take all, the parties take whatever stance can get them 51% of the vote. This means they both are pretty much the same, except where they do differenciate is with single issue voters, the rabid "one cause" people who will vote for any party if that's what they support. These usually divide up as polar opposites with one party getting one and the other getting the other. Those fringe get so much power in the parties, because those are the people willing to donate money, organize, and actually get out and vote on their own. If any single cause gains enough momentum to upset voting, then both parties adopt that stance, split the vote, and leave the remainder to be inneffective. The same thing would happen with a third party. Whenever they actually get too powerful, the major parties start adopting planks out of their party platform and it goes back to be small and meaningless.
You're talking about a country that has to import refined oil because they lack the technical ability to refine crude oil.
They have the technical ability. They just don't want to spend the money on another refinery when there are plenty of other ones already in operation and if they did build one, it probably wouldn't pay for itself. It's the same reasons we aren't building any more refineries, even when a hurricane takes down many of the ones we have.
What is the use of having and continue to pay to maintain the most powerful navy on earth when Iran can choke the Strait of Hormuz whenever she wants?
The point would be that we could stop them if they tried it. Blocking the Strait of Hormuz would be an issue, but there is plenty of oil in current and strategic reserves of the US as well as other countries like Mexico and Canada to run that navy. If it was done against OPEC, then they could help with other methods of shipment or even from Venezuela if needed.
Now, is maintaining that navy, with more aircraft carrier battle groups that the rest of the world, and playing world policeman worth it? Well, judging by our economy, it apparently isn't cost effective.
Yes, but the US court systems interpret that statement, and with legal opposition brought up to the invasion of Iraq, basically said "War is what congress says it is." Meaning, if they ok money or power for the president to do something militarily, that is good enough, and it doesn't need a formal declaration of war. Or to go a bit deeper, what they actually said is that unless congress disagrees with what the president is doing, then the courts can't judge it. (see Doe v. Bush)
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I remember during SCO that Linus said that if there was any infringing code, to tell them and they'd just rewrite it. Unless photos follow different rules, this would seem to indicate that a case can be made that the code couldn't be rewritten from scratch to avoid copyright, because it was written to do the same thing the infringing code was doing. Thus not designed independently.
I believe the quote was actually $65 dollars, but what is more important, a nine month delay. I think the major point was not that China was cheaper, but that they could do it now, while the USA would take time. Meanwhile, all the other American computer companies would still be using China as they are now. Besides, those assembly jobs really aren't important. If they were assembled here, we wouldn't have lots of low income workers assembling them, we'd have lots of machines assembling them. If you really want to bitch about bringing jobs to the US, you should be bitching about the higher paying jobs manufacturing the parts that get shipped to China to be assembled by the workers for a Tiawanese company. Hand assembling is right up there with washing dishes (which are all currently taken by Mexicans because Americans don't want those jobs). If you want to help America, bring the transistor and electronics manufacuring that require highly skilled workers back to the US.
The only reason a company wants market share is so you can leverage it to get the profits by getting people to buy your stuff and developers to make programs for it. So Apple is definately winning over Microsoft and the other cell phone makers. With Linux, it's a bit different because supposedly if everybody was using OS software, there wouldn't have to be any profits to be considered a win as getting people to use OS software is the goal, not profits. So, right now, Apple is getting the profits in the phone business while Linux is getting the market share and can use it for getting more OS programs and support. In effect, both Apple and Linux are currently winning because they are after different things.
We don't have to wonder. She was a blond Moldovan. BBC has pictures of her, description of the dinner, and things that the authorities are asking her. She is apparently defending the captain.
If nothing else, having given the command the was sinking a multi-million dollar ship that was under his command, he should have been trying to act the hero to cover his ass. Surely he knew there would be an inquiry and could figure that ever little thing would be looked at in that inquiry. He was not in any danger staying on the ship. Even if everything was going well and passengers were all off, you'd think he would have stayed on board just for appearance sake. That way when the inquiry hit, he could have stated he was being the hero and making sure that the safety of the passengers and crew were his first consideration even if he was really just standing around doing nothing.
Well, he was asking what it would take to terraform Mars. I'm not one to be messing with somebodies assumed setting for a game they want to run, but if you ask such a question to a physics geek, don't be surprised when they give you an answer.
I did that once on an RPG forum. I think I was just giving Mars an Earth-like atmospheric pressure from local carbon dioxide and comets assumed to be about the size of Haley's (assumed to all be made of frozen gasses) from someplace in the Kuniper Belt. Anyway, just to get those comets to Mars in ten years would require the total energy output of the sun for three days. Then I started figuring out how big the solar panels would have to be at a really good efficiency and how long they would have to be there to gather that energy. Then there was the question of the mass of those solar panels and where it all came from the the energy needed to construct them. Ya, mindboggling stuff that isn't getting done in our greatgrandchild's time even if we all worked on getting it done from now on. It sort of blew the OPs idea of a near current terraformed Mars right out of the water.
Unless New Mexico was gaining altitude. As the r to the earths center grew, so would the distance between the two state lines while staying at the same latitude and longitude lines.
Then there could be one for NOLA. "It looks like you are about to leave the French Quarter. You really do not want to cross Rampart Street."
Well, Americans only eat one kind, the Cavendish. We used to eat the Gross Mike ("Big Mike") until such a blight did kill them off. There are plenty of other bananas, but they are typically starchy and not what an American thinks of as a banana. However, even if the Cavendish does get wiped out, there is apparently another banana ready to take it's place, but it has a more apple flavor to it. In a generation nobody will know, just as we now only have reports that Gross Mike tasted much better than the Cavendish.
The Soviet Union did do a lot of the work in defeating the Nazis. The Eastern Front was where most of the actions was, however, they were receiving lots of aid from the US, Britain and Canada. 15% of their tanks were Shermans. 20% of their fighters and bombers were also from the Lend Lease. Something like 80% of their trucks were American made. Then, there is the artillery, submachine guns and millions of tons of non-military goods shipped to the USSR.
From Wikipedia on Lend Lease Act:
'Joseph Stalin, during the Tehran Conference in 1943, acknowledged publicly the importance of American efforts during a dinner at the conference: "Without American production the United Nations could never have won the war."'[18]
Maybe he thought the first sentence was the summary and only read that as is /. tradition.
Don't give PETA any ideas. That's not actually half as crazy as some of the stuff they do.
You really need to read more XKCD.
If somebody with the power to look at my email really wants it, I just have to ask myself this one question: "Do I really want to get hit with a wrench in the face until I give up the encryption key?"
They'll probably do the same thing they did in the brief time that IE8 was an automatic update, release an app that we can run that will prevent the automatic update from happening.
Not yet. Give it 200 years and a couple of crises to go through, then get back on the subject. With entangled economies, currencies, and therefore militaries, and no borders to speak of, it's just a matter of time as things start binding the EU together as these United States ended up being bound together even though they started out fairly autonomous.
With those managers I feel I can talk to, I often explain that what they really want is a situation where their IT folks are playing video games in the back office. If the IT guys have time to play games, the managers aren't hearing complaints, and work is all getting done, then everything is running fine and when something does go wrong or a project needs to be done, your IT is free to actually get to work right then. If your IT staff is always busy and using all it's resources, then when more resources are needed (and they always will be and it's always an emergency), you are left understaffed and with stuff not getting done.
Oh yes, this sounds familiar. The time given before we were supposed to start downtime procedures was shorter than the time it took to troubleshoot to make sure that the system was even down (or at least what part was down). Initiating downtime procedures took about half and hour to get everything switched over and bring everybody up to speed. The usual troubleshoot and fix took fifteen minutes. So we were effectively ordered to make every downtime a 45 minute downtime (more if you include rolling back off downtime procedures and cleanup) when most (90% as it was almost always the same re-occuring issue) could have been 15 minute downtimes.
Yes, he did go home and complain how they nominated him to lead the revolutionary armies. It could have had something to do with him showing up to said meeting in full uniform with all his medals prominately displayed. Even then, there is a strong feeling that he was such a shoe in for our first leader, because he had no heirs. Nobody wanted a dynasty put into place, and it was a fear with at least one of the founding fathers suggesting we should have a king (IIRC). With no heirs, there would be no dynasty or family taking over the country as a defacto king. Therefore, everybody was for George who was probably sterile from the mumps earlier in life. Thus he ruled for almost 25 years from 1975 to 1999 as the leader of the revolutionary army, the president under the Articles of Confederation, and the United States. By that time, everybody was more comfortable with the idea of a President and we had gone through a major crisis.
Don't kid yourself, fiscal conservatism really doesn't play into American politics. For most, fiscal conservative means spend money where I want it spent or "cut off money to socially liberal programs." Take the Tea Party for example, they state they want responsible economic policy for the US, and that sounds great. Sign me up. Then you ask how they plan to do that and the crazy comes out. Usually this involves getting rid of the government programs they don't like such as welfare, the EPA, Department of Education, etc. None of them seem to realize that we could get rid of all of our branches of the government and stop paying any government salaries, but until you cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the military, and the interest on our debt, that wouldn't even balance the budget.
As for a third social-liberal/fiscal-conservative party, it really just won't work because of how US politics operates. The current two parties don't really stand for anything. As most US elections are winner take all, the parties take whatever stance can get them 51% of the vote. This means they both are pretty much the same, except where they do differenciate is with single issue voters, the rabid "one cause" people who will vote for any party if that's what they support. These usually divide up as polar opposites with one party getting one and the other getting the other. Those fringe get so much power in the parties, because those are the people willing to donate money, organize, and actually get out and vote on their own. If any single cause gains enough momentum to upset voting, then both parties adopt that stance, split the vote, and leave the remainder to be inneffective. The same thing would happen with a third party. Whenever they actually get too powerful, the major parties start adopting planks out of their party platform and it goes back to be small and meaningless.
To entertain small children?
They have the technical ability. They just don't want to spend the money on another refinery when there are plenty of other ones already in operation and if they did build one, it probably wouldn't pay for itself. It's the same reasons we aren't building any more refineries, even when a hurricane takes down many of the ones we have.
The point would be that we could stop them if they tried it. Blocking the Strait of Hormuz would be an issue, but there is plenty of oil in current and strategic reserves of the US as well as other countries like Mexico and Canada to run that navy. If it was done against OPEC, then they could help with other methods of shipment or even from Venezuela if needed.
Now, is maintaining that navy, with more aircraft carrier battle groups that the rest of the world, and playing world policeman worth it? Well, judging by our economy, it apparently isn't cost effective.
Yes, but the US court systems interpret that statement, and with legal opposition brought up to the invasion of Iraq, basically said "War is what congress says it is." Meaning, if they ok money or power for the president to do something militarily, that is good enough, and it doesn't need a formal declaration of war. Or to go a bit deeper, what they actually said is that unless congress disagrees with what the president is doing, then the courts can't judge it. (see Doe v. Bush)