Would we be screaming if it was Microsoft who did this, rather than Google? Yeah, we would be screaming, and rightly so. We'd be worried about Microsoft attempting to create an MS-only ghetto that they lock people into (though it's harder to see how they could do so with a subset, rather than with extensions like they tried last time).
We should subject MS to extra scrutiny - they have certainly earned it. But that doesn't mean that Google gets a pass. I know their motto is "Don't be evil", but that doesn't mean that they will live up to it forever.
A search and seizure warrant for all servers in the datacenter, no matter what company owns them? Either they exceeded the scope of the warrant, or it's a horribly over-broad warrant. Either way, that's not "reasonable" search. It's still a violation of due process - what due process is supposed to mean, that they can't just take people's stuff on a whim.
The fine article says that this results limits the number of possible quarks. Can someone give an explanation (or even the outline of one) at a level that someone with a B.S. in physics can understand?
... because the domain probably didn't end in.gov
It's supposed to be a parking ticket, right? But http://www.some.plausible.domain.name.com/ should be a red flag, just because of the.com
We just had the Super Bowl. People payed 2.4 million dollars to air one 30-second-long commercial.
Were they stupid? Or did they actually know what they were doing? Can they really make a difference in people's behavior in 30 seconds of passive viewing?
My belief is that the advertisers are not stupid - that it actually pays. But if so, arguing that all the sex and violence on TV - or in video games - has no effect, when people are exposed to hours and hours of it, seems rather naive. 30 seconds of a commercial changes people's behavior, but hours and hours of program don't? I'm sceptical...
Look, I'm not supporting Jack Thompson here. As far as I can tell, he's an obsessive jerk who is happy to stretch the truth beyond all recognition to try to advance his crusade. I don't want anything to do with him. And yet, his basic premise - that video games can change people's behavior in negative ways - seems to me to be completely reasonable. More than that, it seems to be supported by the actions of the advertisers, who bet millions of dollars that they can change our behavior via what we watch.
After you turn off the main breaker, put a padlock on it. This prevents anyone who "wants to be helpful" or "knows what they're doing" from turning your main breaker back on.
Also note that your house probably has two phases. With this approach, you probably need to wire them together. If you do this in the house breaker box, do it before you connect your alternate power. Note well: Anything that depends on 220 V power is unusable with this approach. That may well include the high settings on an electric range.
We did this for three days in a winter storm when I was a kid (neighbors were on the corner and had power up a different street; they ran us an extension cord). These tips I learned from watching what my dad did.
Sorry, you still fail.
First: Good doesn't equal best. Granted. But, to review, you picked on one word and criticized my ability to read for content. In doing so, you showed a failure of your own to read for content. I pointed this out. You ignore that and criticize one word. Fine. I concede you the ticky-tacky point about the one word. Enjoy your resounding victory.
Second: Your experience exceeds mine, though not by too much. And, I'll totally grant you that sometimes languages (and other tools) get chosen for stupid reasons. But it's still rather arrogant for you to assume that everyone making such choices is either less experienced or less wise than you. Your experience may let you see that a different tool would be a good fit for your project. You might even be right (after factoring in availability/cost of experienced programmers in less-popular languages, maintainability, and other such considerations that often are ignored by language zealots). You might be right - for your project. But you're calling a lot of people idiots (yeah, my word, not yours), and a fair number of them have as much experience as you, or even more.
In short: It's still arrogance. For all your experience, don't assume that everyone else is ignorant.
You said that Perl, C++, and Java "suck the most", and that Lisp and Smalltalk are "good languages". You then quibble with my use of the word "best" as failure to read for content. Try reading my post for content before you get too critical.
My point was your arrogance, which you display again in your reply. Yeah, you know better than all the rest of us working programmers out there, we're just stupid sheep for picking such lousy languages, and you know so much better than us which languages are good.
"What makes a programming language popular involves a lot of things that have nothing to do with the quality of the language itself." Here you have to do one of two things. Either you assume that we are all idiots for working with bad tools, or else you have to define "the quality of the language itself" as meaning something other than its usability for producing actual working programs in the real world. Both positions are elitist and arrogant.
They both are promising actions that will be economically disastrous. Either they are lying or they are economically clueless. Either way, neither one is qualified for the office.
"Harassment" is exactly what due process is to protect the innocent from. It's not to protect them from being found guilty, it's to protect them from having to spend years and/or thousands to clear their name when they shouldn't have to clear their name at all.
Does anyone else think it's rather arrogant of Bill Gates to assume that he has been a catalyst twice?
Once I'll give him. Microsoft actually made the PC something that most people could use (and afford). I don't think IBM was going to go there; in fact, they tried to stop it with the PS/2.
He's saying that in a month they're going to announce (not ship) something, but he can't talk about it now? So he's telling us that he's not telling us something, but sometime later he will? Why doesn't he just, like, not say anything?
The ".PK" means that they are "pink sheet" - penny stock, less than one dollar a share. The "Q" means that they are in bankruptcy. So the stock was originally called SCOX, then they declared bankruptcy and fell below $1 (I forget the order), and now they're SCOXQ.PK.
... and it could even be an interesting hypothesis, but I doubt it. PJ, while having a definite position, is way too even-handed to be a pseudonym for Stallman.
I don't think the issue is just environmental. If I worked for the fire department, and I saw that mess, I'd worry about how many of the (1500 * 1499) different combinations might be explosive. I'd be thinking, "What if that second-floor fire had spread to the basement?" I'd be worried about people (residents, neighbors, and/or firefighters) dying from something a lot more sudden than environmental toxicity.
And, yes, having sufficient chemicals in your house to blow up not only your own, but also your neighbor's house, is almost certainly a zoning violation - and rightly so.
(I'm too lazy to read the patent to see what it actually claims. Life is short, and I've got better ways to waste my time.)
1. The patent is for the idea of storing a wishlist. This could, arguably, be patentable, with "in a database" being one of the subclaims. (Of course, there's prior art of wedding registries and such that goes a long way back, which would render the patent invalid.)
2. The patent is one of those stupid "something we always did, but on the internet" things that is so 1990s, and should never have been granted even then.
3. They really are patenting "storing it in a database", at which point Captain Obvious should order the patent to be taken out and shot.
As far as I can see, the patent is invalid no matter which alternative turns out to be true.
The US is much less religious than it was 50 years ago. It is also much less civil than it was 50 years ago. So the historical trend in the US backs the grandparent's point; the current geographical data backs the parent's point. Now what?
And, by the way, if your religion makes you less civil to unbelievers, then your religion needs help. I admit that some religious people are like that, but then, some atheists aren't very civil to non-atheists either...
... but they pushed too hard. They tried to control the standard harder than Microsoft did, and they lost because of it.
OS/2 didn't stand by itself. It was part of IBM's PS/2 strategy, which was to make the PC a proprietary architecture and kill off the clone vendors. The PS/2 architecture was patent encumbered, so that nobody could make it but IBM. They were trying to close off the world so that everyone would have to come to them.
Microsoft set people free - from that. But they locked people in to Windows. But, since the software was a lot cheaper than the hardware, and this made for cheaper hardware, it was a big win.
So, unbelievably, Microsoft wound up (at this point) winning the market by being LESS controlling and restrictive.
Slashdot Mirror
Would we be screaming if it was Microsoft who did this, rather than Google? Yeah, we would be screaming, and rightly so. We'd be worried about Microsoft attempting to create an MS-only ghetto that they lock people into (though it's harder to see how they could do so with a subset, rather than with extensions like they tried last time). We should subject MS to extra scrutiny - they have certainly earned it. But that doesn't mean that Google gets a pass. I know their motto is "Don't be evil", but that doesn't mean that they will live up to it forever.
A search and seizure warrant for all servers in the datacenter, no matter what company owns them? Either they exceeded the scope of the warrant, or it's a horribly over-broad warrant. Either way, that's not "reasonable" search. It's still a violation of due process - what due process is supposed to mean, that they can't just take people's stuff on a whim.
... and the memory fades with age. But I seem to remember a time when this was a free country, with due process of law and such.
The fine article says that this results limits the number of possible quarks. Can someone give an explanation (or even the outline of one) at a level that someone with a B.S. in physics can understand?
... because the domain probably didn't end in .gov
It's supposed to be a parking ticket, right? But http://www.some.plausible.domain.name.com/ should be a red flag, just because of the .com
We just had the Super Bowl. People payed 2.4 million dollars to air one 30-second-long commercial.
Were they stupid? Or did they actually know what they were doing? Can they really make a difference in people's behavior in 30 seconds of passive viewing?
My belief is that the advertisers are not stupid - that it actually pays. But if so, arguing that all the sex and violence on TV - or in video games - has no effect, when people are exposed to hours and hours of it, seems rather naive. 30 seconds of a commercial changes people's behavior, but hours and hours of program don't? I'm sceptical...
Look, I'm not supporting Jack Thompson here. As far as I can tell, he's an obsessive jerk who is happy to stretch the truth beyond all recognition to try to advance his crusade. I don't want anything to do with him. And yet, his basic premise - that video games can change people's behavior in negative ways - seems to me to be completely reasonable. More than that, it seems to be supported by the actions of the advertisers, who bet millions of dollars that they can change our behavior via what we watch.
After you turn off the main breaker, put a padlock on it. This prevents anyone who "wants to be helpful" or "knows what they're doing" from turning your main breaker back on.
Also note that your house probably has two phases. With this approach, you probably need to wire them together. If you do this in the house breaker box, do it before you connect your alternate power. Note well: Anything that depends on 220 V power is unusable with this approach. That may well include the high settings on an electric range.
We did this for three days in a winter storm when I was a kid (neighbors were on the corner and had power up a different street; they ran us an extension cord). These tips I learned from watching what my dad did.
Sorry, you still fail. First: Good doesn't equal best. Granted. But, to review, you picked on one word and criticized my ability to read for content. In doing so, you showed a failure of your own to read for content. I pointed this out. You ignore that and criticize one word. Fine. I concede you the ticky-tacky point about the one word. Enjoy your resounding victory. Second: Your experience exceeds mine, though not by too much. And, I'll totally grant you that sometimes languages (and other tools) get chosen for stupid reasons. But it's still rather arrogant for you to assume that everyone making such choices is either less experienced or less wise than you. Your experience may let you see that a different tool would be a good fit for your project. You might even be right (after factoring in availability/cost of experienced programmers in less-popular languages, maintainability, and other such considerations that often are ignored by language zealots). You might be right - for your project. But you're calling a lot of people idiots (yeah, my word, not yours), and a fair number of them have as much experience as you, or even more. In short: It's still arrogance. For all your experience, don't assume that everyone else is ignorant.
You said that Perl, C++, and Java "suck the most", and that Lisp and Smalltalk are "good languages". You then quibble with my use of the word "best" as failure to read for content. Try reading my post for content before you get too critical. My point was your arrogance, which you display again in your reply. Yeah, you know better than all the rest of us working programmers out there, we're just stupid sheep for picking such lousy languages, and you know so much better than us which languages are good. "What makes a programming language popular involves a lot of things that have nothing to do with the quality of the language itself." Here you have to do one of two things. Either you assume that we are all idiots for working with bad tools, or else you have to define "the quality of the language itself" as meaning something other than its usability for producing actual working programs in the real world. Both positions are elitist and arrogant.
Yeah, you know which languages are best. What a pity that 99% of working programmers are too stupid to see the light and move to a good language.
Or is it just possible that they're right and you don't see the whole picture?
They both are promising actions that will be economically disastrous. Either they are lying or they are economically clueless. Either way, neither one is qualified for the office.
"Harassment" is exactly what due process is to protect the innocent from. It's not to protect them from being found guilty, it's to protect them from having to spend years and/or thousands to clear their name when they shouldn't have to clear their name at all.
Does anyone else think it's rather arrogant of Bill Gates to assume that he has been a catalyst twice?
Once I'll give him. Microsoft actually made the PC something that most people could use (and afford). I don't think IBM was going to go there; in fact, they tried to stop it with the PS/2.
He's saying that in a month they're going to announce (not ship) something, but he can't talk about it now? So he's telling us that he's not telling us something, but sometime later he will? Why doesn't he just, like, not say anything?
... what about fragility? Ultra-thin can have a downside.
Maybe the sender is:
- a person who does not have English as their first language, and/or
- a techie?
That would account for the rough grammar and the informality.
I mean, seriously, if an IT guy from .NL wrote it, would you really expect it to read like an American lawyer wrote it?
The ".PK" means that they are "pink sheet" - penny stock, less than one dollar a share. The "Q" means that they are in bankruptcy. So the stock was originally called SCOX, then they declared bankruptcy and fell below $1 (I forget the order), and now they're SCOXQ.PK.
... and it could even be an interesting hypothesis, but I doubt it. PJ, while having a definite position, is way too even-handed to be a pseudonym for Stallman.
I don't think the issue is just environmental. If I worked for the fire department, and I saw that mess, I'd worry about how many of the (1500 * 1499) different combinations might be explosive. I'd be thinking, "What if that second-floor fire had spread to the basement?" I'd be worried about people (residents, neighbors, and/or firefighters) dying from something a lot more sudden than environmental toxicity.
And, yes, having sufficient chemicals in your house to blow up not only your own, but also your neighbor's house, is almost certainly a zoning violation - and rightly so.
(I'm too lazy to read the patent to see what it actually claims. Life is short, and I've got better ways to waste my time.)
1. The patent is for the idea of storing a wishlist. This could, arguably, be patentable, with "in a database" being one of the subclaims. (Of course, there's prior art of wedding registries and such that goes a long way back, which would render the patent invalid.)
2. The patent is one of those stupid "something we always did, but on the internet" things that is so 1990s, and should never have been granted even then.
3. They really are patenting "storing it in a database", at which point Captain Obvious should order the patent to be taken out and shot.
As far as I can see, the patent is invalid no matter which alternative turns out to be true.
Don't Intel processors contain a flash area? And, if so, what can it be used for? Can it be used in some way to fix or bypass this?
Only if you agree with the police...
Captcha = "contempt". Irony?
The US is much less religious than it was 50 years ago. It is also much less civil than it was 50 years ago. So the historical trend in the US backs the grandparent's point; the current geographical data backs the parent's point. Now what?
And, by the way, if your religion makes you less civil to unbelievers, then your religion needs help. I admit that some religious people are like that, but then, some atheists aren't very civil to non-atheists either...
... but they pushed too hard. They tried to control the standard harder than Microsoft did, and they lost because of it.
OS/2 didn't stand by itself. It was part of IBM's PS/2 strategy, which was to make the PC a proprietary architecture and kill off the clone vendors. The PS/2 architecture was patent encumbered, so that nobody could make it but IBM. They were trying to close off the world so that everyone would have to come to them.
Microsoft set people free - from that. But they locked people in to Windows. But, since the software was a lot cheaper than the hardware, and this made for cheaper hardware, it was a big win.
So, unbelievably, Microsoft wound up (at this point) winning the market by being LESS controlling and restrictive.
On their own web site, they admit the existence of prior art? Wow. That leaves only two possibilities:
- They don't understand what "prior art" means, and their lawyer wasn't able to explain it to them, or
- It's a scam, they are admitting it's a scam, and they're looking for people who will pay up to avoid the expense of the court case.
My personal guess would be the scam, but it's just a guess...