I specifically asked about BlueTooth both of the last two times I bought a cellphone. It was the only feature that would have gotten me to spend more on a phone at the time, had it been available to me.
Make sure you have the receipts, and that your parents have homeowners or renters insurance against theft. Many policies cover children's' possessions away from home. I replaced a 21" CRT monitor (in 1998 when that meant something) that way, after it was stolen.
From there, just make sure you back up essential files. Hardware is replaceable. Data rarely is.
An aggressive interview is actually a great technique to give the interviewee a chance to provide their best stuff. It is used all of the time in the UK. At first, I thought it was extremely unfair. After a while, I realized that you can cover a lot more ground, and defend your position a lot better, if the interviewee takes on the role of the detractor.
It's simple. These regulations are designed to be just enough of an inconvenience to convince citizens that the government is working hard to protect them from evil brown terrorists. "Solutions" that are visible get you far more fear votes than solutions that are effective.
Why do you assume this is a killer feature, or somehow integral to their strategy to stay alive as a company. Apple spends a lot more on R&D than any other computer company of similar size.
Along the way, someone at Apple came up with this. They patented it, because it was their original idea. The patent application was recorded and posted on Slashdot, because some reader was interested.
So explain to me again your theory about desperation?
That's a lamp. The patent being discussed is for computers.
Clearly, given the amount of information available about (and to) a computer is going to be orders of magnitudes greater. Also, a computer is an integral part of a workplace. So, I would say that on the informational and aesthetic ends, this patens is very different because it is for a PC, not a lamp.
Everyone is suggesting Linux. I mean, I get it. Solidarity and all. That's cool.
But this is a library. Let's not forget how nice it can be to have a stable OS that also have some polish, a clean user experience, and easy setup. Yes, I am talking about getting some macs.
Touch typing isn't a necessary skill to teach in school anymore. The reason is pretty simple... If you grow up around computers, your fingers learn to type just fine. Kids these days don't need to be taught to type.
More and more of them are like I was, when, in the 7th grade, we had a touch-typing requirement. To pass the class you had to be able to touch type at 40 wpm or better. I got out of the requirement by sitting down and "hunting and pecking" at better than 40 words per minute. I had simply picked up how to type fast enough by using computers all of the time.
I don't tell that story just to sound clever, of course. The point is that kids these days are further along than that. Plus, it turns out that very few jobs requiring computers include a great necessity to type quickly. The computerized workplace isn't quite what people imagined a decade or more ago.
This is a good thing. Road rage, some accidents, and much of the general stress of driving comes because Drivers Are Assholes. That happens because the road is too anonymous-- we don't see the people, we see cars. Add some emotional feedback to the system, and the road would be a lot safer and less draining for all of us.
It's really quite clever. If you are going to cut environmental spending, do it at the same time as you cut space funding on the anniversary of a major event of the space age. All the press will be about Neil Armstrong and nobody will notice the damage being done to our planet in the name of money.
Just this week, I had to remove the catch-all on my two main domains. Something seemed to have happened to my Mail.app junk mail database after some work on my setup, and suddenly most of the spam was making it to my mailbox. A little investigation, and it became clear that it just isn't feasible to have catch-alls anymore. Most of the spam I was getting was sent to addresses that have never, ever been used before.
While I understand that many people in the free software and open source movements like to declare that there is no such thing as intellectual property, you might want to consider whether that statement is a fact, or just part of your ideaology because you want it to be true. I believe that current law is pretty comfortable with the idea of intellectual property.
If you steal the office chairs from my office chair warehouse, you primarily harmed me because you can now sell those chairs to someone else without paying for them what I did (to buy them, build them, etc.).
If you steal the source code for my program, or the blue prints for my car design, or a copy of my book/music/movie, you are accomplishing the same thing. What you steal from me may not disappear from me, but it still harms my ability to sell or share (literally, my right to control copies) my intellectual property as I wish.
I'd have to be an idiot to turn down access to intellectual property of the design of a major automobile. However, I'd also have to be an idiot to make use of that property if all I had was an unauthorized copy-- which is all the "litter" would be in this case.
I think your point is that there is more to conferring the informational content on the raw materials than simply creating the design. Well done, you've arrived at an obvious fact. (If you're going to be sarcastically friendly, I can join in too.)
However, I would still argue the equally obvious fact that the work of arranging the raw materials in line with the car is a relatively useless exercise without the design itself.
Further, in the case of, say, music, software, or a movie, the raw materials are irrelevant. It is the informational structure itself that has value. That seems to me to make your criticism of my argument more of a tangent into the analogy than a useful rebuttal.
There's a fallacy at work here, though I can't quite put my finger on it. People are arguing that copyright infringement isn't the same crime as theft, but they don't stop there. Without arguing it, they jump from there to the conclusion that copyright infringement isn't as serious a crime as theft. That's really the role these arguments play on slashdot, and we all know it.
For my part, I say that copyright infringement is a subset of the crime of theft. Specifically, theft of information. Is the difference between theft of object and theft of information any larger than the difference between the theft of patio table and the theft of moped? I don't think so.
Slashdot Mirror
Will this stop the "standard" from going forward, or just increase the struggle to come to a useful consensus?
I specifically asked about BlueTooth both of the last two times I bought a cellphone. It was the only feature that would have gotten me to spend more on a phone at the time, had it been available to me.
From there, just make sure you back up essential files. Hardware is replaceable. Data rarely is.
An aggressive interview is actually a great technique to give the interviewee a chance to provide their best stuff. It is used all of the time in the UK. At first, I thought it was extremely unfair. After a while, I realized that you can cover a lot more ground, and defend your position a lot better, if the interviewee takes on the role of the detractor.
Sadly, it makes good financial sense. That way they make more on ticket sales to kids, and also make more on copies of the "unrated" DVD version.
I for one hate getting nailed in the box.
"I beat the Internet. The end guy is hard."
"What's the collective noun for bankers?"
"A wunch."
It's simple. These regulations are designed to be just enough of an inconvenience to convince citizens that the government is working hard to protect them from evil brown terrorists. "Solutions" that are visible get you far more fear votes than solutions that are effective.
This happened to me once. Fun times. :(
How exactly do you think prior art works?
Along the way, someone at Apple came up with this. They patented it, because it was their original idea. The patent application was recorded and posted on Slashdot, because some reader was interested.
So explain to me again your theory about desperation?
Clearly, given the amount of information available about (and to) a computer is going to be orders of magnitudes greater. Also, a computer is an integral part of a workplace. So, I would say that on the informational and aesthetic ends, this patens is very different because it is for a PC, not a lamp.
It isn't a "mod" if the case COMES THAT WAY.
Same dress though.
But this is a library. Let's not forget how nice it can be to have a stable OS that also have some polish, a clean user experience, and easy setup. Yes, I am talking about getting some macs.
More and more of them are like I was, when, in the 7th grade, we had a touch-typing requirement. To pass the class you had to be able to touch type at 40 wpm or better. I got out of the requirement by sitting down and "hunting and pecking" at better than 40 words per minute. I had simply picked up how to type fast enough by using computers all of the time.
I don't tell that story just to sound clever, of course. The point is that kids these days are further along than that. Plus, it turns out that very few jobs requiring computers include a great necessity to type quickly. The computerized workplace isn't quite what people imagined a decade or more ago.
That's illegal now without a license. The patent is in private hands.
This is a good thing. Road rage, some accidents, and much of the general stress of driving comes because Drivers Are Assholes. That happens because the road is too anonymous-- we don't see the people, we see cars. Add some emotional feedback to the system, and the road would be a lot safer and less draining for all of us.
For those of you not yet getting this, that's:
Because They Can.
It's really quite clever. If you are going to cut environmental spending, do it at the same time as you cut space funding on the anniversary of a major event of the space age. All the press will be about Neil Armstrong and nobody will notice the damage being done to our planet in the name of money.
Just this week, I had to remove the catch-all on my two main domains. Something seemed to have happened to my Mail.app junk mail database after some work on my setup, and suddenly most of the spam was making it to my mailbox. A little investigation, and it became clear that it just isn't feasible to have catch-alls anymore. Most of the spam I was getting was sent to addresses that have never, ever been used before.
If you steal the office chairs from my office chair warehouse, you primarily harmed me because you can now sell those chairs to someone else without paying for them what I did (to buy them, build them, etc.).
If you steal the source code for my program, or the blue prints for my car design, or a copy of my book/music/movie, you are accomplishing the same thing. What you steal from me may not disappear from me, but it still harms my ability to sell or share (literally, my right to control copies) my intellectual property as I wish.
I think your point is that there is more to conferring the informational content on the raw materials than simply creating the design. Well done, you've arrived at an obvious fact. (If you're going to be sarcastically friendly, I can join in too.)
However, I would still argue the equally obvious fact that the work of arranging the raw materials in line with the car is a relatively useless exercise without the design itself.
Further, in the case of, say, music, software, or a movie, the raw materials are irrelevant. It is the informational structure itself that has value. That seems to me to make your criticism of my argument more of a tangent into the analogy than a useful rebuttal.
For my part, I say that copyright infringement is a subset of the crime of theft. Specifically, theft of information. Is the difference between theft of object and theft of information any larger than the difference between the theft of patio table and the theft of moped? I don't think so.