The owner of a boat, or ship, or personal watercraft, or life vest, can call it whatever the owner wants. The crew can call it whatever they want. Landlubbers can call it whatever they want.
Friends had a father on tankers, and one day, driving him to the ship for his next trip, their small son asked if they were going back to grandpa's boat. No, *ship* said grandpa. *Shit* said the kid. *Ship* said grandpa. *Shit* said the kid. *Boat* said grandpa.
No one else gets to call them boats, unless they enjoy being outed as ignorant arrogant landlubbers.
When I called my ship a boat, as in going back to the boat, that was acceptable because I was talking to my shipmates. You, a landlubber, are not the proper audience for that slang. The only boats in the navy are what any landlubber would buy, size-wise, and submarines.
Clueless landlubber. Go away. Take a short walk on a long pier, you'll stay dry that way.
If you know enough about security to deal with SELinux, you can't have been surprised to find that Dropbox employees, and NSA/CIA/FBI with Dropbox-supplied access, can read your files. Regardless of whether they are encrypted by Dropbox while on the Dropbox servers or not, there is no other way they could send and receive arbitrary files without this capability. Either you are pretending to know nothing about security, or pretending to know something.
Apple's monosystem helps Apple because it keeps their support options limited, rules out funky hardware and mysterious interactions between odd combinations of hardware and software. Their software can be exquisitely tailored to very specific hardware.
But the only way this could help Microsoft would be for Microsoft to design very specific hardware. The fact that they have multiple hardware vendors who are not under their control means this business model won't help them. You might extrapolate and say it would help the individual hardware vendors, but it won't, because they have no control over Microsoft's software.
There's also a very simple rule for things like this. If you have to dictate unpopular terms to companies where there is sufficient competition for the companies to make intelligent decisions on their own, because their very survival is at stake, then your dictated terms are NOT in the best interest of said companies. The same rule applies to people, too, with s/survival/happiness/g. If Microsoft feels the need to pressure these companies against their better judgement, Microsoft is doing something wrong, which is their usual modus operandi: when in doubt, be arrogant and stupid.
Going to the stars is either cheap or fast (for very, very relative values of "cheap" and "fast"). The combination is a physical impossibility.
No, it is only impossible according to today's primitive technology, which has only known about relativity for a little over 100 years, and quantum mechanics less than that.
Please point me towards physics knowledge that suggests faster than light travel or communication. Bonus points if it doesn't require bizarre amounts of energy.
Please point yourself to even a glimmer of imagination and realization that we don't know everything.
Wormholes are a way for sci-fi writers to conveniently keep their plot moving. We'll not be using it to conveniently keep our starships moving.
Such a binary imagination to assume it's wormholes or nothing. I'm glad you know all about the future of science. We ought to hire you and abolish all science jobs everywhere since you know all.
Nothing you describe above is anything that hits hard physical limits.
They certainly thought so at the time, which is my point, which whooshed right on past you. That's not surprising, since you seem to think the future ends right now.
Good grief, what makes you think we know, now, that future tech will never find a way to get to the stars in any reasonable time with a reasonable energy cost?
Good grief, use current tech limits to whine that chemical rockets can't do the trick.
Good grief, whine that current physics knowledge won't allow faster than light travel or even communication.
Good grief, whine that we know everything today and will never ever come up with any new ideas. Wormholes? Science fiction without the science. Too afraid to come up with any alternatives because we already know there aren't any. 107 years ago saw the first controlled (barely) powered (barely) flight (barely). You'd have stopped there even though we have thousands of years ahead of us that will make the last 107 look as slow as those 107 made the prior 107 years look.
People like you would never have even kept a lightning strike fire going "because we don't know how to start one ourselves".
Never would have tinkered with Newcomen's engine to make it better, never would have dreamed of putting it on rails or in a boat, because 5 psi isn't good enough and it burns too much wood and we will never know how to make better metals or find better fuels.
Never would have investigated the speed of light in ether, never would have wondered why it showed no variation, never would have wondered where radiation came from, never would have wondered about anything.
On and on, whiners like you are left in the dust by those who dream. What a dreary world you live in.
And the ancient Egyptians no doubt said the same when someone invented papyrus -- "kids these days don't know how to memorize things".
Bah. Not memorizing long winded tales leaves brain storage to remember other things, and papyrus memories don't suffer from the same bitrot as human memories. But those ancient old fogies didn't consider that any more than modern old fogies don't consider the advantages of new tech.
*snort* No one considers the Air a netbook. If netbooks are famous for anything, it's cheap and small. The Air is certainly thin, and minimal on storage and connections, but it's not small or cheap. It's only competitors are regular Macs with gold plated hinges and a rose colored filter for the camera.
Tablets, including the iPad, compete with netbooks. Apple fanboys would buy an iNetbook in a heartbeat, but Apple won't make them because a cheap one would not uphold their reputation and would compete with their pricey laptops. But an iPad, now there's a deal, cheaper than an Apple laptop. Not as cheap as an old netbook, but those are Windows or Linux and thus not desirable by Apple fanboys.
Whereas those who will stoop to buy a cheap netbook aren't interested in a more expensive tablet which has no keyboard. Lack of a cover to protect the screen may even be a consideration.
The penalty is simple and dead obvious: loser pays, and not just court costs, but every expense the winner incurred in fighting the case. It should apply to all cases, including government criminal prosecution ans small claims court.
A secondary help would be to require all such costs to be reported, and if any party spent more than (say, double) any other party, they automatically lose the case. This would prevent rich parties (including the government) from spending so much that they buy justice. But I think this would be unnecessary if we allowed investors in court cases; a poor party with an excellent case would probably be able to attract loans from investors looking for the other party to lose and pay them back, with interest.
All you need is loser pays. Let them file all the bogus lawsuits they want, as long as they have to pay all court costs and all costs incurred by the winner, including legal costs, time off from work, every expense which was a direct result of having to defend oneself.
A better definition would include penalties for losing, especially when the case is so obviously without merit because it cites nonexistent laws, cites a state law in a federal case, and includes points which have already been rejected by the very same judge.
I wouldn't mind them filing bogus case after bogus case, as long as they had to pay when they lost.
But to allow ANYONE to file without penalty for being a jackass is not a sign of a functional justice system.
Free is handy, but the syncing among clients is what makes it so simple. You install the client, there's some minimal setup, and now whatever happens in any file watched by dropbox is uploaded to the server and automatically downloaded to the other clients. You could set up a dozen and get automatic mirroring. It is handy. Some people use it to collaborate, but it wouldn't handle multiple people editing the same file very well.
That's its main attraction, the automatic mirroring. Nothing impossible to do yourself, but handy. Wouldn't pay for just that.
I have a dropbox account and don't remember seeing that section where they claimed they couldn't read my files. I'm certain I read it, but I never would have believed it to mean they were truly unable to read my files -- if they encrypted them before storing them, they'd have to be able to decrypt them to send them back to me, or to track changes. Did someone actually think they had an irreversible encryption process which could somehow be reversed by the magic between them and me? A one time pad which somehow evaporated while sending files back to me? It might be reasonable to think they have some sort of access controls so ordinary people there can't browser customer data, but I never would have put any ironclad faith in such policies. That's wy it was common knowledge, near as I could tell, all round the web that you needed to encrypt backups and such yourself before sending them to dropbox.
I don't understand why anyone would expect otherwise. This is a tempest in a teapot.
Slashdot Mirror
The owner of a boat, or ship, or personal watercraft, or life vest, can call it whatever the owner wants. The crew can call it whatever they want. Landlubbers can call it whatever they want.
Fuckin' free speech, how does that work?
Friends had a father on tankers, and one day, driving him to the ship for his next trip, their small son asked if they were going back to grandpa's boat. No, *ship* said grandpa. *Shit* said the kid. *Ship* said grandpa. *Shit* said the kid. *Boat* said grandpa.
No one else gets to call them boats, unless they enjoy being outed as ignorant arrogant landlubbers.
When I called my ship a boat, as in going back to the boat, that was acceptable because I was talking to my shipmates. You, a landlubber, are not the proper audience for that slang. The only boats in the navy are what any landlubber would buy, size-wise, and submarines.
Clueless landlubber. Go away. Take a short walk on a long pier, you'll stay dry that way.
Apparently your humor doesn't.
No, Elvis is.
And pb&j sandwiches.
If you know enough about security to deal with SELinux, you can't have been surprised to find that Dropbox employees, and NSA/CIA/FBI with Dropbox-supplied access, can read your files. Regardless of whether they are encrypted by Dropbox while on the Dropbox servers or not, there is no other way they could send and receive arbitrary files without this capability. Either you are pretending to know nothing about security, or pretending to know something.
Apple's monosystem helps Apple because it keeps their support options limited, rules out funky hardware and mysterious interactions between odd combinations of hardware and software. Their software can be exquisitely tailored to very specific hardware.
But the only way this could help Microsoft would be for Microsoft to design very specific hardware. The fact that they have multiple hardware vendors who are not under their control means this business model won't help them. You might extrapolate and say it would help the individual hardware vendors, but it won't, because they have no control over Microsoft's software.
There's also a very simple rule for things like this. If you have to dictate unpopular terms to companies where there is sufficient competition for the companies to make intelligent decisions on their own, because their very survival is at stake, then your dictated terms are NOT in the best interest of said companies. The same rule applies to people, too, with s/survival/happiness/g. If Microsoft feels the need to pressure these companies against their better judgement, Microsoft is doing something wrong, which is their usual modus operandi: when in doubt, be arrogant and stupid.
Whoooosh!
We shall never see a better post.
Going to the stars is either cheap or fast (for very, very relative values of "cheap" and "fast"). The combination is a physical impossibility.
No, it is only impossible according to today's primitive technology, which has only known about relativity for a little over 100 years, and quantum mechanics less than that.
Please point me towards physics knowledge that suggests faster than light travel or communication. Bonus points if it doesn't require bizarre amounts of energy.
Please point yourself to even a glimmer of imagination and realization that we don't know everything.
Wormholes are a way for sci-fi writers to conveniently keep their plot moving. We'll not be using it to conveniently keep our starships moving.
Such a binary imagination to assume it's wormholes or nothing. I'm glad you know all about the future of science. We ought to hire you and abolish all science jobs everywhere since you know all.
Nothing you describe above is anything that hits hard physical limits.
They certainly thought so at the time, which is my point, which whooshed right on past you. That's not surprising, since you seem to think the future ends right now.
Good grief, what makes you think we know, now, that future tech will never find a way to get to the stars in any reasonable time with a reasonable energy cost?
Good grief, use current tech limits to whine that chemical rockets can't do the trick.
Good grief, whine that current physics knowledge won't allow faster than light travel or even communication.
Good grief, whine that we know everything today and will never ever come up with any new ideas. Wormholes? Science fiction without the science. Too afraid to come up with any alternatives because we already know there aren't any. 107 years ago saw the first controlled (barely) powered (barely) flight (barely). You'd have stopped there even though we have thousands of years ahead of us that will make the last 107 look as slow as those 107 made the prior 107 years look.
People like you would never have even kept a lightning strike fire going "because we don't know how to start one ourselves".
Never would have tinkered with Newcomen's engine to make it better, never would have dreamed of putting it on rails or in a boat, because 5 psi isn't good enough and it burns too much wood and we will never know how to make better metals or find better fuels.
Never would have investigated the speed of light in ether, never would have wondered why it showed no variation, never would have wondered where radiation came from, never would have wondered about anything.
On and on, whiners like you are left in the dust by those who dream. What a dreary world you live in.
And the ancient Egyptians no doubt said the same when someone invented papyrus -- "kids these days don't know how to memorize things".
Bah. Not memorizing long winded tales leaves brain storage to remember other things, and papyrus memories don't suffer from the same bitrot as human memories. But those ancient old fogies didn't consider that any more than modern old fogies don't consider the advantages of new tech.
*snort* No one considers the Air a netbook. If netbooks are famous for anything, it's cheap and small. The Air is certainly thin, and minimal on storage and connections, but it's not small or cheap. It's only competitors are regular Macs with gold plated hinges and a rose colored filter for the camera.
Tablets, including the iPad, compete with netbooks. Apple fanboys would buy an iNetbook in a heartbeat, but Apple won't make them because a cheap one would not uphold their reputation and would compete with their pricey laptops. But an iPad, now there's a deal, cheaper than an Apple laptop. Not as cheap as an old netbook, but those are Windows or Linux and thus not desirable by Apple fanboys.
Whereas those who will stoop to buy a cheap netbook aren't interested in a more expensive tablet which has no keyboard. Lack of a cover to protect the screen may even be a consideration.
The penalty is simple and dead obvious: loser pays, and not just court costs, but every expense the winner incurred in fighting the case. It should apply to all cases, including government criminal prosecution ans small claims court.
A secondary help would be to require all such costs to be reported, and if any party spent more than (say, double) any other party, they automatically lose the case. This would prevent rich parties (including the government) from spending so much that they buy justice. But I think this would be unnecessary if we allowed investors in court cases; a poor party with an excellent case would probably be able to attract loans from investors looking for the other party to lose and pay them back, with interest.
What the frack were you replying to? I argued that anyone should be allowed to file, as long as loser pays, so that the clowns would be self-limiting.
A system where anyone can file WITHOUT penalty is not functional.
All you need is loser pays. Let them file all the bogus lawsuits they want, as long as they have to pay all court costs and all costs incurred by the winner, including legal costs, time off from work, every expense which was a direct result of having to defend oneself.
They'd quickly learn not to file bogus cases.
A better definition would include penalties for losing, especially when the case is so obviously without merit because it cites nonexistent laws, cites a state law in a federal case, and includes points which have already been rejected by the very same judge.
I wouldn't mind them filing bogus case after bogus case, as long as they had to pay when they lost.
But to allow ANYONE to file without penalty for being a jackass is not a sign of a functional justice system.
Free is handy, but the syncing among clients is what makes it so simple. You install the client, there's some minimal setup, and now whatever happens in any file watched by dropbox is uploaded to the server and automatically downloaded to the other clients. You could set up a dozen and get automatic mirroring. It is handy. Some people use it to collaborate, but it wouldn't handle multiple people editing the same file very well.
That's its main attraction, the automatic mirroring. Nothing impossible to do yourself, but handy. Wouldn't pay for just that.
I have a dropbox account and don't remember seeing that section where they claimed they couldn't read my files. I'm certain I read it, but I never would have believed it to mean they were truly unable to read my files -- if they encrypted them before storing them, they'd have to be able to decrypt them to send them back to me, or to track changes. Did someone actually think they had an irreversible encryption process which could somehow be reversed by the magic between them and me? A one time pad which somehow evaporated while sending files back to me? It might be reasonable to think they have some sort of access controls so ordinary people there can't browser customer data, but I never would have put any ironclad faith in such policies. That's wy it was common knowledge, near as I could tell, all round the web that you needed to encrypt backups and such yourself before sending them to dropbox.
I don't understand why anyone would expect otherwise. This is a tempest in a teapot.
Whoooosh ... that's why it's an imaginary imaginary number.
Zero squared is still zero.
Negative zero squared is still an imaginary imaginary number; imaginary squared.
Take your pick; the US is still a two party system.
Who waited for the second story?
He said "reposters", not "reporters". You are as bad at reading as they are.
They invented unladen swallow jokes.