I wonder what they used to measure power usage for this test. Did the instrument record true RMS power? Those instruments are much more expensive but required for accurate results. Guess I should rtfa.
Well, if it did, then at least the power is free. Or wants to be. Or should be...
Think of it this way: if you're a book author, and you put out a work that someone else changes a few words to, then claims copyright to, how pissed would you be? That's how many patent holders feel when someone does the above. If I spend 300+ hours working out a new, awesome tennis racket that doesn't induce tennis elbow, I'd be pissed if a lawyer took the words of my patent, found some inconsequential component ("cross-stitching"), changed it to something equally inconsequential ("horizontal-stitching"), and started making tennis rackets based 99% off my design.
The trouble is that these days you can effectively patent the idea of a racket that eliminates tennis elbow, without ever having to have actually designed or built one, then sit around and wait for someone else to do the hard work so that you can file suit against them. That's a problem. There are many extremes, and while your explanation describes one the reality is far closer to the other these days.
The trick itself could be patented (but generally isn't).
In this particular case however, the stage performance (blocking, expressions, actions) was quite thoroughly documented and registered for copyright by Teller as a pantomime in 1983. Note that no details as to how the trick was accomplished were documented, just the performance. That makes it fairly cut and dry - if its an explalnation of how to do the trick, the suit is meritless. If its details as to how to perform the act, that's a blatant copyright violation.
And yes, ebonics is nothing more than being fucking lazy and mispronouncing half the English language in some form of guttural shorthand. Yeah, there's a language barrier there alright, but it's one that should have been slapped out of the mouths of lazy kids everywhere decades ago.
I agree completely. Don't even get me started on people who say "Yeah," instead of "Yes." After all, if I'm reading you correctly, lazy pronounciations obviously mean that the thoughts they convey aren't worth thinking...
No, this is not about patents. The arguments on patents come later.
And this - among other reasons - is why people involved in multiple court cases avoid making offhand comments in one that could be deliberately misconstrued and used against them in another one. Right or wrong, its far from uncomon.
No, but if when presenting they say, "This would work in theory..." people don't yell at them from the crowd because they're using the popular definition of the word in a way that was clear and unmistakable.
When you say, as Hughes did, "Download it for free..." then its obvious in context that he means gratis. You could argue the point if he'd said "Download this free software from"... but he didn't.
Context. Its important. Without it we cannot communicate, and open communication is vital to society.
And no, I didn't mean open as in "Please open this jar," or even "please open this socket." Its impossible, at least in English, to avoid ambiguities when the person receiving the conversation is intent on creating them.
XP shipped End of 2001, Vista Shipped end of 2006. That would be 5 years, Not sure what calculator you are using but I would not call 5 years the better part of a decade.
I don't know. The late 90s were pretty darn fun, for me at least. Way better than the first 5-6 years, and some fantastic New Year's parties to boot.
So, people (incl manufacturer) were choosing to install an OS on their hardware that had incredibly well-known and published EOL dates coming up, even though Microsoft had updated versions with substantially greater lifetimes ahead of them already released. And, somehow, that's Microsoft's fault. Not the manufacturer's fault, not the purchaser's fault... Microsoft's fault.
And when Microsoft puts terms in its contracts with PC manufacturers that specify that they can't sell XP any more, many (including the/. community) jump up and cry foul. You can't have it both ways.
Yup. Of course, you had to pay for it. Apple would rather have you pay $30 for an OS update than thousands of dollars a month for a support and maintenance contract. But hey, that's the difference between building primarily workstation-focussed products and primarily server products (and yes, I know that Sun made workstations too).
And the device might have cost 3X the price of the original - in a market where people won't pay 1.n X the price to buy the original and then upgrade it later.
That's the kind of thinking that's often a) 100% accurate, and b) completely impractical if you want to still be giving paychecks to your employees next month.
If practically every business does this already, why can't the city? And don't give me that it's too many people. Think about how many people it takes to restock every grocery store in the city every night? That workforce ALONE dwarfs what the city would need to take care of pot holes several times over. And bargain grocery stores find the practice entirely economical.
Let's see. Working at night with dangerous equipment and supplies is tricky, so you'll need lights (which will annoy anyone nearby wanting to sleep). And generators, of course, to power the lights. Both of those items cost money, of course, both to purchase and to run/maintain. You'll also probably need to pay more money to attract people to the night shift (almost always the case, no matter what the industry - which is why the bulk of computer and grocery work does, indeed, get done during normal business hours).
How many people would actually vote to double the cost of pothole maintenance, and promise to not complain if they were woken up at night, just to get the crews off the streets during the day? This is not a case of an unsolvable problem, but this is what happens when you demand that costs get cut to the bone on a department-by-department basis. Working at night might cost less for the city as an organism (fewer disruptions, better traffic flow, etc) but would require that more funds be allocated to that department without increasing the number of potholes they can work on. Being honest, especially after re-reading your post, would you have voted for that?
Yup. Which definition could also apply just as well to Matin, if only he was alive to make it.
If only we had a system in which people could be presented with the facts and have the ability to question those presenting the facts to determine their validity. Oh, well.
The problem was that, while Zimmerman's idea of "got scared" was to dial 911 and follow at a safe distance, the kid's idea of "got scared" was call your girlfriend and then give this white dude a beat-down to teach him a lesson. We all know how that worked out.
Even if that's true (which I personally doubt), Zimmerman "got scared" because the kid was, you know, black. In his neighborhood. The villan! And Martin got scared because a man with a gun was following him and questioning his right to walk to his house on a public sidewalk.
That said, was Zimmerman trying to kill Martin? Unknown, and innocent before proven guilty demands that I consider it unlikely until evidence rules that out.
Yup. But a presumption of innocence shouldn't extend to the point that the only surviving member of a violent confrontation that results in a death doesn't get arrested because "they're probably innocent." That's what everyone's complaing about here.
Slightly OT, but that's also why people complain about jail holding cell conditions. There's a chance that Zimmerman is guilty; there's a chance that he's innocent. We shouldn't punish him if he's innocent, but we also don't have to let him roam around with his gun if he's guilty. That's why people are, generally, arrested and held (either by emprisonment or by financial incentive) until trial.
Of course in this case (and in many), the odds that one of two men who had never previously met, recorded during a confrontation on a 911 call, were impersonating each other successfully enough to fool analysis software are moderately incredible. But please, keep talking about voice disguises.
It's obvious that there were lots of ways this could have been avoided. Zimmerman could have neglected to pursue, and Treyvon could have taken his girlfriend's advice and ran home
Did you actually read what you just wrote there? Its half Treyvon's fault he's dead because he didn't stop walking home from the store and run away when he offended the older white man by simply being in his neighborhood?
Regardless of the facts, that's one hell of a thing to say. Shame on you.
And every time you bounced a machine, you'd have to scramble to hand-key in a long, complex key that you weren't allowed by policy to even write down somewhere?
Not really. The point is that whatever token - whatever token - you need to hand to the remote server to establish your bone fides has to be available in a form that the remote server will accept. That means no one-way hashing, period.
Sure, with OAuth a compromise won't reveal your actual password, which will keep it out of the hands of scripts designed to spread the pain. That's good, really good. But it won't mean that somehow, magically, your GMail account won't get hacked.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder what they used to measure power usage for this test. Did the instrument record true RMS power? Those instruments are much more expensive but required for accurate results. Guess I should rtfa.
Well, if it did, then at least the power is free. Or wants to be. Or should be...
You do realize that the GGPP was accurate though, right? Apple is adding another ~3,000 jobs to its NA call center in Austin...
Think of it this way: if you're a book author, and you put out a work that someone else changes a few words to, then claims copyright to, how pissed would you be? That's how many patent holders feel when someone does the above. If I spend 300+ hours working out a new, awesome tennis racket that doesn't induce tennis elbow, I'd be pissed if a lawyer took the words of my patent, found some inconsequential component ("cross-stitching"), changed it to something equally inconsequential ("horizontal-stitching"), and started making tennis rackets based 99% off my design.
The trouble is that these days you can effectively patent the idea of a racket that eliminates tennis elbow, without ever having to have actually designed or built one, then sit around and wait for someone else to do the hard work so that you can file suit against them. That's a problem. There are many extremes, and while your explanation describes one the reality is far closer to the other these days.
The trick itself could be patented (but generally isn't).
In this particular case however, the stage performance (blocking, expressions, actions) was quite thoroughly documented and registered for copyright by Teller as a pantomime in 1983. Note that no details as to how the trick was accomplished were documented, just the performance. That makes it fairly cut and dry - if its an explalnation of how to do the trick, the suit is meritless. If its details as to how to perform the act, that's a blatant copyright violation.
Are you suggesting that Apple is evil for not having exclusively American call centers to support its products sold in Italy now?
And yes, ebonics is nothing more than being fucking lazy and mispronouncing half the English language in some form of guttural shorthand. Yeah, there's a language barrier there alright, but it's one that should have been slapped out of the mouths of lazy kids everywhere decades ago.
I agree completely. Don't even get me started on people who say "Yeah," instead of "Yes." After all, if I'm reading you correctly, lazy pronounciations obviously mean that the thoughts they convey aren't worth thinking...
No, this is not about patents. The arguments on patents come later.
And this - among other reasons - is why people involved in multiple court cases avoid making offhand comments in one that could be deliberately misconstrued and used against them in another one. Right or wrong, its far from uncomon.
No, but if when presenting they say, "This would work in theory..." people don't yell at them from the crowd because they're using the popular definition of the word in a way that was clear and unmistakable.
When you say, as Hughes did, "Download it for free..." then its obvious in context that he means gratis. You could argue the point if he'd said "Download this free software from" ... but he didn't.
Context. Its important. Without it we cannot communicate, and open communication is vital to society.
And no, I didn't mean open as in "Please open this jar," or even "please open this socket." Its impossible, at least in English, to avoid ambiguities when the person receiving the conversation is intent on creating them.
I advise you to google around some.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate - US homicide rate is 4X that of the UK. Not definitive, but a reasonable point to bring to bear in this discussion, if you feel like wandering down that path.
XP shipped End of 2001, Vista Shipped end of 2006. That would be 5 years, Not sure what calculator you are using but I would not call 5 years the better part of a decade.
I don't know. The late 90s were pretty darn fun, for me at least. Way better than the first 5-6 years, and some fantastic New Year's parties to boot.
So, people (incl manufacturer) were choosing to install an OS on their hardware that had incredibly well-known and published EOL dates coming up, even though Microsoft had updated versions with substantially greater lifetimes ahead of them already released. And, somehow, that's Microsoft's fault. Not the manufacturer's fault, not the purchaser's fault... Microsoft's fault.
Whu?
And when Microsoft puts terms in its contracts with PC manufacturers that specify that they can't sell XP any more, many (including the /. community) jump up and cry foul. You can't have it both ways.
Yup. Of course, you had to pay for it. Apple would rather have you pay $30 for an OS update than thousands of dollars a month for a support and maintenance contract. But hey, that's the difference between building primarily workstation-focussed products and primarily server products (and yes, I know that Sun made workstations too).
Makes you wonder if they might have done just that?
And the device might have cost 3X the price of the original - in a market where people won't pay 1.n X the price to buy the original and then upgrade it later.
That's the kind of thinking that's often a) 100% accurate, and b) completely impractical if you want to still be giving paychecks to your employees next month.
If practically every business does this already, why can't the city? And don't give me that it's too many people. Think about how many people it takes to restock every grocery store in the city every night? That workforce ALONE dwarfs what the city would need to take care of pot holes several times over. And bargain grocery stores find the practice entirely economical.
Let's see. Working at night with dangerous equipment and supplies is tricky, so you'll need lights (which will annoy anyone nearby wanting to sleep). And generators, of course, to power the lights. Both of those items cost money, of course, both to purchase and to run/maintain. You'll also probably need to pay more money to attract people to the night shift (almost always the case, no matter what the industry - which is why the bulk of computer and grocery work does, indeed, get done during normal business hours).
How many people would actually vote to double the cost of pothole maintenance, and promise to not complain if they were woken up at night, just to get the crews off the streets during the day? This is not a case of an unsolvable problem, but this is what happens when you demand that costs get cut to the bone on a department-by-department basis. Working at night might cost less for the city as an organism (fewer disruptions, better traffic flow, etc) but would require that more funds be allocated to that department without increasing the number of potholes they can work on. Being honest, especially after re-reading your post, would you have voted for that?
What if the bus system removes enough cars from the road that you only need 95% as many road-miles as you otherwise would? Or even 99%?
Do you have any idea how phenomenally expensive it is to build a road?
Bad: 'Unlikely' Credit Card Details Lifted From Xbox 360s
Better: 'Unlikely' that Credit Card Details have been Lifted From Xbox 360s
See the difference?
Yup. Which definition could also apply just as well to Matin, if only he was alive to make it.
If only we had a system in which people could be presented with the facts and have the ability to question those presenting the facts to determine their validity. Oh, well.
The problem was that, while Zimmerman's idea of "got scared" was to dial 911 and follow at a safe distance, the kid's idea of "got scared" was call your girlfriend and then give this white dude a beat-down to teach him a lesson. We all know how that worked out.
Even if that's true (which I personally doubt), Zimmerman "got scared" because the kid was, you know, black. In his neighborhood. The villan! And Martin got scared because a man with a gun was following him and questioning his right to walk to his house on a public sidewalk.
Can you truly not see any difference there?
That said, was Zimmerman trying to kill Martin? Unknown, and innocent before proven guilty demands that I consider it unlikely until evidence rules that out.
Yup. But a presumption of innocence shouldn't extend to the point that the only surviving member of a violent confrontation that results in a death doesn't get arrested because "they're probably innocent." That's what everyone's complaing about here.
Slightly OT, but that's also why people complain about jail holding cell conditions. There's a chance that Zimmerman is guilty; there's a chance that he's innocent. We shouldn't punish him if he's innocent, but we also don't have to let him roam around with his gun if he's guilty. That's why people are, generally, arrested and held (either by emprisonment or by financial incentive) until trial.
Of course in this case (and in many), the odds that one of two men who had never previously met, recorded during a confrontation on a 911 call, were impersonating each other successfully enough to fool analysis software are moderately incredible. But please, keep talking about voice disguises.
It's obvious that there were lots of ways this could have been avoided. Zimmerman could have neglected to pursue, and Treyvon could have taken his girlfriend's advice and ran home
Did you actually read what you just wrote there? Its half Treyvon's fault he's dead because he didn't stop walking home from the store and run away when he offended the older white man by simply being in his neighborhood?
Regardless of the facts, that's one hell of a thing to say. Shame on you.
And every time you bounced a machine, you'd have to scramble to hand-key in a long, complex key that you weren't allowed by policy to even write down somewhere?
Bzzzt, thank you, please try again.
Not really. The point is that whatever token - whatever token - you need to hand to the remote server to establish your bone fides has to be available in a form that the remote server will accept. That means no one-way hashing, period.
Sure, with OAuth a compromise won't reveal your actual password, which will keep it out of the hands of scripts designed to spread the pain. That's good, really good. But it won't mean that somehow, magically, your GMail account won't get hacked.