So can pork, chicken, eggs etc. if not prepared properly, no-ones saying you eat raw uncooked bugs... and as for allergies... well there are enough food allergies out there already... Just ask anyone with a peanut allergy. I myself am allergic to potatos, corn and chocolate, (so sayeth the allergist, of course potato and corn are RAW potato and corn... cooked is just fine.)
the problem with climate study in general is there are literally millions of possible variables to affect global climate. are there things we can do to prevent it? possibly, it's also entirely possible that there is nothing we can do to stop it. it all depends on the variables a study takes into account. I'm not a denier, and I do think there are things we should be doing to lessen our impact on the environment. Climate change is a very new science, there are a lot of factors we don't know about, and new factors come into play in each new study. It's still science, proving and disproving hypotheses is the foundation of the scientific method. Shutting down the findings of a study because you don't believe in it is as short-sighted and self-serving as creationists denying the evidence of evolution.
I actually like seeing more studies being done on this, rather than just towing the party line...
really? third reply to this that completely misses the point? and then argues with me on the merits of one alternate theory being way out to lunch...
I SAID... What I hope comes of this is... allowing your mind to be open to other possibilities.
NOT TO CREATIONISM BUT TO F***ING SCIENCE! Science is about knowledge not facts. Teaching science as all facts is detrimental to the development of science as a whole. There are lots of things we have theories about but no solid facts. Teaching them as facts is a bad way to teach science. I'm not talking about evolution or creationism or gravity, I'm talking simply about the processes we don't fully understand. There are literally thousands of things that don't fit with current theories, and yet we still teach those theories as being flawless facts. I'm not talking about magic fairies waving magic freaking wands here, I'm talking about genuine curiosities of science.
It's this closed mindedness on both sides of this debate that frustrate me. I'm talking specifically here about opening the minds of the religious fundies... Not opening to the theory that "We won the opening face off that means we won the game" mentality! I never said that, I criticized the creationist philosophy 3 times in my 5 line post... and yet you are the third person who missed the point. Tell me, HOW did you get to that from what I wrote? HOW? PLEASE explain this to me...
I also never said we should teach both sides, but rather we should teach that there are multiple theories. The problem that this creates is of course testing. we'd have to have a completely different method of grading students. Because we can't have a multiple choice question with one right answer. Science just doesn't work that way all the time. Theories are proven and disproven all the time. Science is about the discovery the learning the testing... Not philosophy. Philosophy has no place in science.
Please read before you post, it makes your trolling less obvious.
My post was written criticizing creationists and creationism. In fact I said specifically that the one thing I had hoped to come out of it was open mindedness. Not creationism... "is not so much the teaching of creationism as being on the same playing field as evolution" I didn't feel the need to in this audience to clarify that phrase with "of course it isn't" because we're all adults here and pandering leads to bitterness. and I'd get other trolls biting me.
I haven't once mentioned teaching creationism as science. The law specifies teaching "alternative theories" Now, I read that not as "teaching creationism!" I read that as teaching "alternative theories" You see, when I was growing up, Science class throughout elementary, and high school was about spouting "FACTS" when as I've grown up, taken university science classes, done research papers, studied on my own etc. Science isn't about facts. It's about knowledge, and expanding that knowledge. And if you're closed minded to other ideas (As creationists are! had to put that in there JUST FOR YOU!!!), mankind will never grow as a race. Never "Evolve" if you will. Now, you spout facts, and theories without fully comprehending them. Yet one of the most open-minded creationists I've ever talked to, talked about guided evolution, and he believed that God created mankind, but didn't just wave a magic wand and make them all appear exactly as they are now, but rather gave the spark which created the life we know which we have not been able to replicate and do not fully comprehend the mechanisms behind. And then slowly through the millenia guided how the life would evolve into what we are now. Now I thought about that for a while, and have come to the conclusion there is emperical evidence for it. Here are a few historical examples, wheat that was bred to provide better crops in a shorter growing cycle. Canola. the domestic Cow. all of these forms of life have had their natural evolution detoured by the hand of man. These "Facts" opened my mind to the possibility of guided evolution. Do I believe the flying spaghetti monster waved his noodly appendage and created all the pirates? Of course not. that's just silliness talking. That was a made up story to prevent kids from growing up to be economists... But can I disprove it? Not yet, it is disprovable however. The existence of a God is of course unprovable, and thus un-disprovable and non scientific. something must be disprovable. and guided evolution most certain is.
You obviously don't fully understand scientific "theories" either. Gravity for example has two parts. There is the fact that it exists, that much is self evident, and then the theory as to how it works, that has been tested and tested and has passed every test we've thrown at it thus far, becoming accepted as fact, but a discovery tomorrow could throw everything we know about gravity out the window, granted that is extremely unlikely. Evolution is a fact, the theory is the method of how it works, natural selection, spontaneous mutation, etc. those are the theories of evolution. There are scientific facts, and then there is the theory of how that fact works, so that we can utilize that fact for other things. Gravity has implications in dozens of other scientific research. And it's not all about how fast a coin and a feather fall in a vacuum, if our calculations are wrong, or there is even a single exception to the rule it puts all that other research in doubt.
So just because someone has evidence of something you disagree with doesn't mean you can close your mind to that evidence, because "it's not the same" like the guided evolution (genetic modification, genetic manipulation, selective breeding or whatever you want to call it) of wheat and canola. A true scientist accepts all evidence whether or not it proves or disproves his hypothesis, science isn't about picking and choosing your results. Open mindedness is the key.
Never said it belonged in a science classroom, nor called it science, In fact I don't think I mentioned a specific class in my post. That doesn't mean it doesn't belong in a Social Studies, History, or Religion class however. Science and Social studies are two separate subjects dealing with separate ideas.
Doesn't change my point at all either.
When I was in school, things were taught in a very poor way, everything was stated as a "fact", "these are scientific facts". No room to challenge any thought. This is not the best way to discover things. Some of those facts have been disproven scientifically. I've learned to remain open minded. To challenge ideas. It's this challenging that in fact can both disprove and prove theories and ideas. Discussing controversy in a classroom, can be used for good or bad. It can be used to reveal other positions. as well as other positions weaknesses, including the predominant theories weaknesses.
Your knee-jerk reaction to my post is exactly the point I was trying to make about the arguments. Thank you for being a perfect example. I never defended creationism or creationists. Yet you attacked me for not attacking them. This knee-jerk reaction from both sides of the debate is why no progress can be made in this. Evolutionists are "RIGHT DAMNIT!" and creationists are "RIGHT DAMNIT" there's no room for discussion. to put your statements into my initial example would be "It doesn't matter who won the face off, since we scored 3 goals off of lost faceoffs. Faceoffs aren't goals"
i wish I had mod points to give you. What I hope comes of this, is not so much the teaching of creationism as being on the same playing field as evolution, but allowing your mind to be open to other possibilities. Open-mindedenss is a learned skill. closing your mind to alternate theories is what is wrong with this creationism/evolution debate. both sides are guilty of it, evolutionists focus on the fact that the processes are well documented and observed etc. Creationists focus on the origin. the creation of mankind as the be-all and end-all of the discussion. the facts of evolution are never up for debate except by the evolutionist.
Its like having a discussion about a hockey game. Creationists are argueing vehemently that their team won the opening face off. evolutionists are arguing that their team outplayed and out scored throughout the first two periods, and that the third period hasn't started yet. It all comes down to, "yeah but we won the opening face-off so we've won the game"
Inside information not withstanding, as a longtime Shaw High-speed customer, (we signed up with "Shaw Wave" when it was first brought into our town in 1998) They told us up front, that excessive use will cause throttling. As Shaw migrated to @Home, It was again mentioned that throttling high-usage accounts would occur. with the caveat that it was once you reached 4 GB of data downloaded per month you'd be throttled down, with your speed refreshed the first of the month, repeat offenders would receive letters, and face possible disconnection.
They've had the ability to for longer than 10 years, and have only in the last 10 years (since abandoning @Home) not advertising this ability in their TOS. in experience however, the throttling only ever took place for repeat offenders, who continually broke the barrier got Shaw's attention.
Is it fair to start a war with an entire country because of the act of one or a small group of individuals? and when it is a small group of internationally scattered individuals, which country(s) do you attack, all of them? what if one of the people were Americans? or a close ally? is it worth risking all-out World Wide war because of a handful of hackers living in their parent's basements? The question really is difficult to ascertain.
This is not unlike the problem of the war on bin Laden, do you attack Saudi? his homeland? Iraq, a country which condemned him, and deported him years earlier? Afghanistan, where he might be hiding out? Pakistan, where he was hiding out? It becomes trickier when you're dealing with more allies... one guy in Britain, one in Canada, one in the Netherlands, one in Italy, and one in Australia, while the attack was launched from a compromised computer within the United States. Who do you invade? Where does the missile target? pick one and hope the rest of the world doesn't side with them on the relatively unprovoked attack on another nation's sovereignty due to the actions of one of their civilians?
So let me get this straight,
If apple does only allow app installations from the App Store, rather than allowing you to install whatever you want on your computer. What does this mean for anti-trust precedents set against Microsoft? The lawsuits fighting against them bundling IE with windows. Microsoft never wanted to deny you the right to install another browser, they simply bundled their browser with their OS, and got sued for it. Apple did it, nobody batted an eye. Apple prevented you from installing another browser on an iPod, iPhone, and iPad, and nobody batted an eye. where are the anti-trust lawsuits? You know if google released android with the limitation of only using a chrome based browser, they'd be sued as well. Why is Apple so special that they can do the same things on an even grander scale and everything is ok?
I'm not anti-Apple per se, I own an iPhone and an iPad, because they do what I want them to do, for the most part. I got the iPhone before Android was any good, and am now financially commited to iOS, which is why i got an iPad, apps are transferable, and I don't have to plunk down a lot more cash to get the same functionality. I do really wish I could use a different browser than Safari once in a while. Especially since Safari crashes on my iPad at least 3-4 times a day.
originally it wasn't an obfuscated file system, originally it didn't require proprietary software, originally it was firewire.
heck my old iPod was the first generation with the proprietary cable, (called a dock port at the time as the iPod shipped with a docking station) it still connected via firewire. and MP3 players weren't that common in 2001, especially in the gigabyte range. 128 mb players were shipping, but were expensive novelties. you do realize this was 10 years ago right? I had a 20 gb creative Nomad before that and that thing was huge (by today's standard, at the time it was the same size and shape as a CD player) and a piece of junk, if the original original ipods worked on PCs I would have had one of them instead.
Where I work we run oracle, since we run Oracle, we've got an Oracle rep. our Oracle rep has been calling us nearly once a week asking if we want to buy a server, we keep telling him no. My manager is getting angry at them, and has asked them several times to stop calling.
He said he likes the console for console only games... he games for hours on his pc, but likes the console for the console only games. And I see his point. As for your point "don't buy their crap until they make something worth buying", obviously they did make something he felt was worth buying, certain console only games that aren't available on the PC (God of War anyone?). Or games that come out for PC 2-3 years after they've been on the console. (Metal Gear)
To argue that the PC is superior is preaching to the choir, I know it is, I also know that I can play games on consoles for a LOT less than I could buy a PC for. that being said I really wish I had a PC capable of playing Fallout 3 on... I'd much prefer the controls on a PC... sadly my old 5 year old P4 3.0 just doesn't cut it anymore. I'm planning on upgrading soon, but my kids need clothes more than I need a new PC... so for a 3rd of the price of a computer to play FO3, I can play it on my PS3, which I got primarily for bluray support and to play a few good games. Also say what you will, consoles make great party machines, easy to launch games as thats what they're designed to do.
oh yeah the extremely unique yellow light of death, it's completely unlike the red ring of death...
I got a PS3 specifically for bluray and games in 1080p... that's two things that the Xbox 360 doesn't have, and why I chose it over the Microsoft option. The ability to choose what media server I want to connect it to helps too. Throw in the ease of HDD upgrades, (and cost difference in doing so) built in wifi, hdmi output on all models, Bluetooth, so i don't have to purhcase a Microsoft headset, there's ABSOLUTELY nothing different between the two, you're absolutely right. They're the same. They both play games... they have no other features. gotcha...
as for the PSPgo? well, it's a different product entirely. should you be mad at them for not allowing the Sony Discman to play cassette tapes as well? or what about the Sony MP3 players not having a built in CD-Reader?
I'm not a fanboi, or an astroturfer, I'm a consumer, I made my choice based on factors you ignore, which is your right as a consumer, but it's not right for you to say "what's unique about the PS3" when there are obvious differences besides the controller. and your example of the yellow light of death... very ironic of you to claim that is a unique "feature". very clever, I'd mod that comment +1 for irony.
unless the definition of "machine" specifically indicates Hardware, (which i'm sure it doesn't since processes can be patented) sounds to me like Dealerlink didn't have a lawyer who specialized in Patent law. rather than allowing the argument to be lead in the direction of a processor being the "specific machine" the "specific machine" should have been the algorithms used in the code. This case doesn't stop anything. it's not precident setting, it's pretty much a bad lawyer losing a case for his client.
IANAL nor do I play one on TV, but I work with enough of them to be able to spot a bad one.
As soon as they mentioned specific machine, it seems their lawyer curled up and died, when he should have been arguing that the specific machine test does in fact pass as without the algorithms the process falls flat, and it is in fact the algorithms that constitute the specific machine in the patent. not the CPU or computer. If this does become a precident however, and this judgement does define a machine as "hardware" a LOT of patents are going to become invalid or challengable. and not just software patents. which means it's really just a matter of time before it's overturned.
isn't that kinda like what the alternator is doing?
using the internal combustion engine (which produces speed, aka "wind", which is a resulting effect of the engine pushing the vehicle through the air) to keep the battery charged?
And there is less wasted energy using the belt drive vs wind... since the air isn't actually moving it's the vehicle that's moving, throwing a propeller to capture the wind would be akin to putting a sail up (or as is used in drag races, a parachute), which would only have the effect of hindering the vehicles energy efficiency rather than helping it's energy usage.
exactly, might as well ban the sale of playing cards too. I know many many kids who's introduction to gambling was playing poker with their buddies for pennies...
I know i'm late to the party here, but I have to ask you one question...
Do you REALLY think that that admin's who have poor security on their wired networks are going to become smarter and have strong security on their wireless networks?
The unsecure wired networks of the world are run by people who are either lazy or less worried about break-ins. either through false optimism in security through obscurity or "why would they attack us we have nothing worth stealing" those are the same mentality of people who would use WEP as the only security on their wireless networks. People who implement strong security on wireless also are the kind who implement strong security on their wired networks. even simple security of keeping wiring closets locked and unused ports unpatched.
Chapter 1 of any security book I've read is always, ALWAYS about physical security to the site, without a lock on the door all other security measures are just a matter of time to crack. wireless negates that initial step of security. physical security is no longer an obstacle that needs to be compromised. they skip that step right to step 2 and start with the hacking other forms of security.
To me relying on wireless security is like relying on the club and removable faceplate on your car stereo to prevent your car being broken into. (leaving the door unlocked) Now those things along with a locked door, increase the chance of the thief moving on to the next target. thus making you less of a target.
Also what about uptime? I've never seen a wireless network with very good uptime. especially with sustained connections. if the move to all wireless removing all wires is a good thing, what about server uptime? It also leaves you wide open for other kinds of DOS attacks, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be all that difficult for someone to build a box that transmits excessive garbage radio signals that's capable of disrupting wireless communications. Heck EMI from my 9 year old CRT TV makes my wireless on my PS3 drop out when it's only 15 ft away from the AP...
It's a little harder to disrupt a wired network in that way.
that's the worst kind of public performance. you're providing access to material to someone who refuses to pay for the right to read those books! it doesn't matter that they can't read yet or if they can very poorly that's not the fault of the copyright holder.
I've stopped reading to my children, instead I force my children to look at a blank notebook which i've blacked out any words on the cover. I'm hoping they learn to write soon so they can have something they can learn to read with. since if I write something in that book they're violating my copyright by reading it out loud... I've already filed a patent application on this form of teaching how to read so if anyone copies it I'll sue!/sarcasm
Slashdot Mirror
mark!
If this is happening in 3-4 months, how many of those days will we get "documentaries" on how this might spell our doom?
Seriously,. if this happens every 11 years, it's hardly noteworthy...
That means I've lived through 3 of them...
So can pork, chicken, eggs etc. if not prepared properly, no-ones saying you eat raw uncooked bugs... and as for allergies... well there are enough food allergies out there already... Just ask anyone with a peanut allergy. I myself am allergic to potatos, corn and chocolate, (so sayeth the allergist, of course potato and corn are RAW potato and corn... cooked is just fine.)
not terribly exciting, but I get to schedule what i'm doing that week.
the problem with climate study in general is there are literally millions of possible variables to affect global climate. are there things we can do to prevent it? possibly, it's also entirely possible that there is nothing we can do to stop it. it all depends on the variables a study takes into account. I'm not a denier, and I do think there are things we should be doing to lessen our impact on the environment. Climate change is a very new science, there are a lot of factors we don't know about, and new factors come into play in each new study. It's still science, proving and disproving hypotheses is the foundation of the scientific method. Shutting down the findings of a study because you don't believe in it is as short-sighted and self-serving as creationists denying the evidence of evolution.
I actually like seeing more studies being done on this, rather than just towing the party line...
frankly...
the more studies the better.
Or Common Law...
Can anybody read?
really? third reply to this that completely misses the point? and then argues with me on the merits of one alternate theory being way out to lunch...
I SAID... What I hope comes of this is ... allowing your mind to be open to other possibilities.
NOT TO CREATIONISM BUT TO F***ING SCIENCE! Science is about knowledge not facts. Teaching science as all facts is detrimental to the development of science as a whole. There are lots of things we have theories about but no solid facts. Teaching them as facts is a bad way to teach science. I'm not talking about evolution or creationism or gravity, I'm talking simply about the processes we don't fully understand. There are literally thousands of things that don't fit with current theories, and yet we still teach those theories as being flawless facts. I'm not talking about magic fairies waving magic freaking wands here, I'm talking about genuine curiosities of science.
It's this closed mindedness on both sides of this debate that frustrate me. I'm talking specifically here about opening the minds of the religious fundies... Not opening to the theory that "We won the opening face off that means we won the game" mentality! I never said that, I criticized the creationist philosophy 3 times in my 5 line post... and yet you are the third person who missed the point. Tell me, HOW did you get to that from what I wrote? HOW? PLEASE explain this to me...
I also never said we should teach both sides, but rather we should teach that there are multiple theories. The problem that this creates is of course testing. we'd have to have a completely different method of grading students. Because we can't have a multiple choice question with one right answer. Science just doesn't work that way all the time. Theories are proven and disproven all the time. Science is about the discovery the learning the testing... Not philosophy. Philosophy has no place in science.
Please read before you post, it makes your trolling less obvious.
My post was written criticizing creationists and creationism. In fact I said specifically that the one thing I had hoped to come out of it was open mindedness. Not creationism... "is not so much the teaching of creationism as being on the same playing field as evolution" I didn't feel the need to in this audience to clarify that phrase with "of course it isn't" because we're all adults here and pandering leads to bitterness. and I'd get other trolls biting me.
I haven't once mentioned teaching creationism as science. The law specifies teaching "alternative theories" Now, I read that not as "teaching creationism!" I read that as teaching "alternative theories" You see, when I was growing up, Science class throughout elementary, and high school was about spouting "FACTS" when as I've grown up, taken university science classes, done research papers, studied on my own etc. Science isn't about facts. It's about knowledge, and expanding that knowledge. And if you're closed minded to other ideas (As creationists are! had to put that in there JUST FOR YOU!!!), mankind will never grow as a race. Never "Evolve" if you will. Now, you spout facts, and theories without fully comprehending them. Yet one of the most open-minded creationists I've ever talked to, talked about guided evolution, and he believed that God created mankind, but didn't just wave a magic wand and make them all appear exactly as they are now, but rather gave the spark which created the life we know which we have not been able to replicate and do not fully comprehend the mechanisms behind. And then slowly through the millenia guided how the life would evolve into what we are now. Now I thought about that for a while, and have come to the conclusion there is emperical evidence for it. Here are a few historical examples, wheat that was bred to provide better crops in a shorter growing cycle. Canola. the domestic Cow. all of these forms of life have had their natural evolution detoured by the hand of man. These "Facts" opened my mind to the possibility of guided evolution. Do I believe the flying spaghetti monster waved his noodly appendage and created all the pirates? Of course not. that's just silliness talking. That was a made up story to prevent kids from growing up to be economists... But can I disprove it? Not yet, it is disprovable however. The existence of a God is of course unprovable, and thus un-disprovable and non scientific. something must be disprovable. and guided evolution most certain is.
You obviously don't fully understand scientific "theories" either. Gravity for example has two parts. There is the fact that it exists, that much is self evident, and then the theory as to how it works, that has been tested and tested and has passed every test we've thrown at it thus far, becoming accepted as fact, but a discovery tomorrow could throw everything we know about gravity out the window, granted that is extremely unlikely. Evolution is a fact, the theory is the method of how it works, natural selection, spontaneous mutation, etc. those are the theories of evolution. There are scientific facts, and then there is the theory of how that fact works, so that we can utilize that fact for other things. Gravity has implications in dozens of other scientific research. And it's not all about how fast a coin and a feather fall in a vacuum, if our calculations are wrong, or there is even a single exception to the rule it puts all that other research in doubt.
So just because someone has evidence of something you disagree with doesn't mean you can close your mind to that evidence, because "it's not the same" like the guided evolution (genetic modification, genetic manipulation, selective breeding or whatever you want to call it) of wheat and canola. A true scientist accepts all evidence whether or not it proves or disproves his hypothesis, science isn't about picking and choosing your results. Open mindedness is the key.
Basica
Never said it belonged in a science classroom, nor called it science, In fact I don't think I mentioned a specific class in my post. That doesn't mean it doesn't belong in a Social Studies, History, or Religion class however. Science and Social studies are two separate subjects dealing with separate ideas. Doesn't change my point at all either. When I was in school, things were taught in a very poor way, everything was stated as a "fact", "these are scientific facts". No room to challenge any thought. This is not the best way to discover things. Some of those facts have been disproven scientifically. I've learned to remain open minded. To challenge ideas. It's this challenging that in fact can both disprove and prove theories and ideas. Discussing controversy in a classroom, can be used for good or bad. It can be used to reveal other positions. as well as other positions weaknesses, including the predominant theories weaknesses. Your knee-jerk reaction to my post is exactly the point I was trying to make about the arguments. Thank you for being a perfect example. I never defended creationism or creationists. Yet you attacked me for not attacking them. This knee-jerk reaction from both sides of the debate is why no progress can be made in this. Evolutionists are "RIGHT DAMNIT!" and creationists are "RIGHT DAMNIT" there's no room for discussion. to put your statements into my initial example would be "It doesn't matter who won the face off, since we scored 3 goals off of lost faceoffs. Faceoffs aren't goals"
i wish I had mod points to give you. What I hope comes of this, is not so much the teaching of creationism as being on the same playing field as evolution, but allowing your mind to be open to other possibilities. Open-mindedenss is a learned skill. closing your mind to alternate theories is what is wrong with this creationism/evolution debate. both sides are guilty of it, evolutionists focus on the fact that the processes are well documented and observed etc. Creationists focus on the origin. the creation of mankind as the be-all and end-all of the discussion. the facts of evolution are never up for debate except by the evolutionist. Its like having a discussion about a hockey game. Creationists are argueing vehemently that their team won the opening face off. evolutionists are arguing that their team outplayed and out scored throughout the first two periods, and that the third period hasn't started yet. It all comes down to, "yeah but we won the opening face-off so we've won the game"
Inside information not withstanding, as a longtime Shaw High-speed customer, (we signed up with "Shaw Wave" when it was first brought into our town in 1998) They told us up front, that excessive use will cause throttling. As Shaw migrated to @Home, It was again mentioned that throttling high-usage accounts would occur. with the caveat that it was once you reached 4 GB of data downloaded per month you'd be throttled down, with your speed refreshed the first of the month, repeat offenders would receive letters, and face possible disconnection. They've had the ability to for longer than 10 years, and have only in the last 10 years (since abandoning @Home) not advertising this ability in their TOS. in experience however, the throttling only ever took place for repeat offenders, who continually broke the barrier got Shaw's attention.
the end of the world is a week after it's release. It's only fair that I'll be watching it when the world ends.
Is it fair to start a war with an entire country because of the act of one or a small group of individuals? and when it is a small group of internationally scattered individuals, which country(s) do you attack, all of them? what if one of the people were Americans? or a close ally? is it worth risking all-out World Wide war because of a handful of hackers living in their parent's basements? The question really is difficult to ascertain. This is not unlike the problem of the war on bin Laden, do you attack Saudi? his homeland? Iraq, a country which condemned him, and deported him years earlier? Afghanistan, where he might be hiding out? Pakistan, where he was hiding out? It becomes trickier when you're dealing with more allies... one guy in Britain, one in Canada, one in the Netherlands, one in Italy, and one in Australia, while the attack was launched from a compromised computer within the United States. Who do you invade? Where does the missile target? pick one and hope the rest of the world doesn't side with them on the relatively unprovoked attack on another nation's sovereignty due to the actions of one of their civilians?
So let me get this straight, If apple does only allow app installations from the App Store, rather than allowing you to install whatever you want on your computer. What does this mean for anti-trust precedents set against Microsoft? The lawsuits fighting against them bundling IE with windows. Microsoft never wanted to deny you the right to install another browser, they simply bundled their browser with their OS, and got sued for it. Apple did it, nobody batted an eye. Apple prevented you from installing another browser on an iPod, iPhone, and iPad, and nobody batted an eye. where are the anti-trust lawsuits? You know if google released android with the limitation of only using a chrome based browser, they'd be sued as well. Why is Apple so special that they can do the same things on an even grander scale and everything is ok? I'm not anti-Apple per se, I own an iPhone and an iPad, because they do what I want them to do, for the most part. I got the iPhone before Android was any good, and am now financially commited to iOS, which is why i got an iPad, apps are transferable, and I don't have to plunk down a lot more cash to get the same functionality. I do really wish I could use a different browser than Safari once in a while. Especially since Safari crashes on my iPad at least 3-4 times a day.
Just like nobody upgraded to the 3GS right? This isn't a new pattern for Apple. Nor will it be!
originally it wasn't an obfuscated file system, originally it didn't require proprietary software, originally it was firewire. heck my old iPod was the first generation with the proprietary cable, (called a dock port at the time as the iPod shipped with a docking station) it still connected via firewire. and MP3 players weren't that common in 2001, especially in the gigabyte range. 128 mb players were shipping, but were expensive novelties. you do realize this was 10 years ago right? I had a 20 gb creative Nomad before that and that thing was huge (by today's standard, at the time it was the same size and shape as a CD player) and a piece of junk, if the original original ipods worked on PCs I would have had one of them instead.
I'm not sure if you're trolling or really that ignorant... how could a nuclear reactor on the moon cause the Earth to lose it's orbital stability?
Where I work we run oracle, since we run Oracle, we've got an Oracle rep. our Oracle rep has been calling us nearly once a week asking if we want to buy a server, we keep telling him no. My manager is getting angry at them, and has asked them several times to stop calling.
He said he likes the console for console only games... he games for hours on his pc, but likes the console for the console only games. And I see his point. As for your point "don't buy their crap until they make something worth buying", obviously they did make something he felt was worth buying, certain console only games that aren't available on the PC (God of War anyone?). Or games that come out for PC 2-3 years after they've been on the console. (Metal Gear)
To argue that the PC is superior is preaching to the choir, I know it is, I also know that I can play games on consoles for a LOT less than I could buy a PC for. that being said I really wish I had a PC capable of playing Fallout 3 on... I'd much prefer the controls on a PC... sadly my old 5 year old P4 3.0 just doesn't cut it anymore. I'm planning on upgrading soon, but my kids need clothes more than I need a new PC... so for a 3rd of the price of a computer to play FO3, I can play it on my PS3, which I got primarily for bluray support and to play a few good games. Also say what you will, consoles make great party machines, easy to launch games as thats what they're designed to do.
oh yeah the extremely unique yellow light of death, it's completely unlike the red ring of death... I got a PS3 specifically for bluray and games in 1080p... that's two things that the Xbox 360 doesn't have, and why I chose it over the Microsoft option. The ability to choose what media server I want to connect it to helps too. Throw in the ease of HDD upgrades, (and cost difference in doing so) built in wifi, hdmi output on all models, Bluetooth, so i don't have to purhcase a Microsoft headset, there's ABSOLUTELY nothing different between the two, you're absolutely right. They're the same. They both play games... they have no other features. gotcha... as for the PSPgo? well, it's a different product entirely. should you be mad at them for not allowing the Sony Discman to play cassette tapes as well? or what about the Sony MP3 players not having a built in CD-Reader? I'm not a fanboi, or an astroturfer, I'm a consumer, I made my choice based on factors you ignore, which is your right as a consumer, but it's not right for you to say "what's unique about the PS3" when there are obvious differences besides the controller. and your example of the yellow light of death... very ironic of you to claim that is a unique "feature". very clever, I'd mod that comment +1 for irony.
unless the definition of "machine" specifically indicates Hardware, (which i'm sure it doesn't since processes can be patented) sounds to me like Dealerlink didn't have a lawyer who specialized in Patent law. rather than allowing the argument to be lead in the direction of a processor being the "specific machine" the "specific machine" should have been the algorithms used in the code. This case doesn't stop anything. it's not precident setting, it's pretty much a bad lawyer losing a case for his client. IANAL nor do I play one on TV, but I work with enough of them to be able to spot a bad one. As soon as they mentioned specific machine, it seems their lawyer curled up and died, when he should have been arguing that the specific machine test does in fact pass as without the algorithms the process falls flat, and it is in fact the algorithms that constitute the specific machine in the patent. not the CPU or computer. If this does become a precident however, and this judgement does define a machine as "hardware" a LOT of patents are going to become invalid or challengable. and not just software patents. which means it's really just a matter of time before it's overturned.
isn't that kinda like what the alternator is doing?
using the internal combustion engine (which produces speed, aka "wind", which is a resulting effect of the engine pushing the vehicle through the air) to keep the battery charged?
And there is less wasted energy using the belt drive vs wind... since the air isn't actually moving it's the vehicle that's moving, throwing a propeller to capture the wind would be akin to putting a sail up (or as is used in drag races, a parachute), which would only have the effect of hindering the vehicles energy efficiency rather than helping it's energy usage.
that happens on paved roads here anyway... due to the gravel we use to grit the roads in winter
exactly, might as well ban the sale of playing cards too. I know many many kids who's introduction to gambling was playing poker with their buddies for pennies...
I know i'm late to the party here, but I have to ask you one question...
Do you REALLY think that that admin's who have poor security on their wired networks are going to become smarter and have strong security on their wireless networks?
The unsecure wired networks of the world are run by people who are either lazy or less worried about break-ins. either through false optimism in security through obscurity or "why would they attack us we have nothing worth stealing" those are the same mentality of people who would use WEP as the only security on their wireless networks. People who implement strong security on wireless also are the kind who implement strong security on their wired networks. even simple security of keeping wiring closets locked and unused ports unpatched.
Chapter 1 of any security book I've read is always, ALWAYS about physical security to the site, without a lock on the door all other security measures are just a matter of time to crack. wireless negates that initial step of security. physical security is no longer an obstacle that needs to be compromised. they skip that step right to step 2 and start with the hacking other forms of security.
To me relying on wireless security is like relying on the club and removable faceplate on your car stereo to prevent your car being broken into. (leaving the door unlocked) Now those things along with a locked door, increase the chance of the thief moving on to the next target. thus making you less of a target.
Also what about uptime? I've never seen a wireless network with very good uptime. especially with sustained connections. if the move to all wireless removing all wires is a good thing, what about server uptime? It also leaves you wide open for other kinds of DOS attacks, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be all that difficult for someone to build a box that transmits excessive garbage radio signals that's capable of disrupting wireless communications. Heck EMI from my 9 year old CRT TV makes my wireless on my PS3 drop out when it's only 15 ft away from the AP...
It's a little harder to disrupt a wired network in that way.
that's the worst kind of public performance. you're providing access to material to someone who refuses to pay for the right to read those books! it doesn't matter that they can't read yet or if they can very poorly that's not the fault of the copyright holder.
I've stopped reading to my children, instead I force my children to look at a blank notebook which i've blacked out any words on the cover. I'm hoping they learn to write soon so they can have something they can learn to read with. since if I write something in that book they're violating my copyright by reading it out loud... I've already filed a patent application on this form of teaching how to read so if anyone copies it I'll sue! /sarcasm