It says here that Conan is 61. But then again it says here that Conan is 45. So I guess I have to shell out a few bucks and play the game to find out what is the age of Conan.
If nobody implements it, then it's never going to improve. What the submitter is saying is that nobody's been trying to implement anything using the technology, and consequently it's never gotten better, until the patents blocking progress have been removed and people are welcome to try and make the technology better. What it all boils down to is that whoever owned those patents didn't utilize them - maybe a lack of funding, maybe some other hindrance, but the result was that touchscreen technology is 20 years behind what it should have been.
I'm a recall coordinator. My job is to apply the formula. It's a story problem.
A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 miles per hour. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now: do we initiate a recall?
Take the number of vehicles in the field, (A), and multiply it by the probable rate of failure, (B), then multiply the result by the average out-of-court settlement, (C). A times B times C equals X... If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.
er no, the way I look at the eeepc is that I want the linux model, with the extra storage on it, rather than the windows one, with no extra storage. Simply because upgrading a mobile device with aftermarket parts is an expensive deal, I want to start out with the highest specs available already.
Much of the innovation in the OLPC, if I understand it correctly, is in the hardware, and not in Sugar. Now since the specs are out there freely as well, maybe someone can come and put together something good out of this mess.
Yeah watching the Dark Crystal http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083791/ again was kinda like that. It was a fantastic movie... in it's day. Some movies have lasting power, some don't. I wonder what I would feel about Labyrinth about now.
I've just thought up a scenario where all the kids in the first world grew up on PCs running Windows. And all the kids in the third world grew up on PCs running Linux (or sugar, meaning they didn't even touch the OS). Firstly, can't this be considered a barrier to economic growth, seeing as how you're neither going to outsource to these poor schmucks, and when they immigrate to your country they're not going to hire them either. Now for protectionism advocates this is a godsend, but that hardly benefits the third world, telling them they have to develop their own economy instead of participating in yours. Add to that some sabre-rattling from Microsoft and you've got a problem.
Learning requires freedom. At the risk of being flamebait, exactly how does learning require freedom? Children learn from their parents - the most autocratic system in the world is the family structure, especially in the formative phases. Yes, freedom is a good thing to have, but it's not going to benefit people if all they learn to do is use an obscure system that doesn't do anything the way they do it out in the business world.
Why not use names that force people to look up their purpose instead of assume that they mean what they say they mean? That's the whole problem with the terms "Free Software" and "Shared Source", or for that matter, "Genuine Advantage", "Plays for Sure", "Trusted Computing", "War on Terrorism", "CAN-SPAM" and many others. The names say one thing, but they actually do represent something entirely else.
You may not be able to extort any money out of these people, nor would you want to, but releasing the domains back to the public would be the worst scenario for them, especially if you were to post the addresses up somewhere public, allowing them to be caught up by some spammer or real domain squatter. Especially if they were outside of your local jurisdiction. So even when you're not holding them for ransom, in essence, you are. And of course, it's not really your fault. But don't worry, I expect this scenario would go away when domain tasting is finally revoked.
This has nothing to do with being fair. It's called scapegoating. Sure he may have had their approval, but when things sour, he'll find that it's pretty lonesome up at the top. Everyone else wants to just lay their sins on the scapegoat and send it into the wilderness.
If the 2 companies were splitting up a financial pie that didn't involve intruding into each other's customer space, they could have easily worked out an agreement, maybe equal advertising space on each other's sites, shared advertising costs, thus profiting both companies and strengthening each other's brand name. Instead one company benefits at the expense of the other, with the side effect of becoming notorious for the setting of bad legal precedence.
Exactly what did Microsoft learn? That tying up the competition in litigation will buy you time to further secure your market position? That it is better to work through shell companies instead of getting personally involved, even if the facade was so thin that anyone who was not actively trying to ignore it couldn't? That spending money on offensive litigation needs to be part of the annual budget?
It's been pointed out before, but the RIAA doesn't actually file any suits, instead referring the case to the parent corporation whose rights had been allegedly infringed. Any countersuit would have to include that corporation. No weaselling out of that one, nope.
It may not have reached a jury, but it's definitely caught the public eye. Here on slashdot we're just a bunch of unorganized geeks, not necessarily from America, and not likely to put up a concerted defense. But perception out there is changing. Once lawyers smell money in the air from defensive and counter-offensive lawsuits against the likes of Sony, Warner, EMI and Universal (deep pockets to draw money from), we could have a case of ambulance-chasing here.
You'd have to go quite far to convince someone to kill himself and a load of innocent passengers in order to protect your own damning evidence though. How on earth would anyone pull it off?
Slashdot Mirror
Funny how I don't remember there ever being a golden age of marketing or accounting though.
It says here that Conan is 61. But then again it says here that Conan is 45. So I guess I have to shell out a few bucks and play the game to find out what is the age of Conan.
If nobody implements it, then it's never going to improve. What the submitter is saying is that nobody's been trying to implement anything using the technology, and consequently it's never gotten better, until the patents blocking progress have been removed and people are welcome to try and make the technology better. What it all boils down to is that whoever owned those patents didn't utilize them - maybe a lack of funding, maybe some other hindrance, but the result was that touchscreen technology is 20 years behind what it should have been.
I'm a recall coordinator. My job is to apply the formula. It's a story problem.
A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 miles per hour. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now: do we initiate a recall?
Take the number of vehicles in the field, (A), and multiply it by the probable rate of failure, (B), then multiply the result by the average out-of-court settlement, (C). A times B times C equals X... If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.
er no, the way I look at the eeepc is that I want the linux model, with the extra storage on it, rather than the windows one, with no extra storage. Simply because upgrading a mobile device with aftermarket parts is an expensive deal, I want to start out with the highest specs available already.
Much of the innovation in the OLPC, if I understand it correctly, is in the hardware, and not in Sugar. Now since the specs are out there freely as well, maybe someone can come and put together something good out of this mess.
Dig hard enough in that building there and you'd find where they misplaced the Ark of the Covenant.
Yeah watching the Dark Crystal http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083791/ again was kinda like that. It was a fantastic movie... in it's day. Some movies have lasting power, some don't. I wonder what I would feel about Labyrinth about now.
I've just thought up a scenario where all the kids in the first world grew up on PCs running Windows. And all the kids in the third world grew up on PCs running Linux (or sugar, meaning they didn't even touch the OS). Firstly, can't this be considered a barrier to economic growth, seeing as how you're neither going to outsource to these poor schmucks, and when they immigrate to your country they're not going to hire them either. Now for protectionism advocates this is a godsend, but that hardly benefits the third world, telling them they have to develop their own economy instead of participating in yours. Add to that some sabre-rattling from Microsoft and you've got a problem.
Why not use names that force people to look up their purpose instead of assume that they mean what they say they mean? That's the whole problem with the terms "Free Software" and "Shared Source", or for that matter, "Genuine Advantage", "Plays for Sure", "Trusted Computing", "War on Terrorism", "CAN-SPAM" and many others. The names say one thing, but they actually do represent something entirely else.
You may not be able to extort any money out of these people, nor would you want to, but releasing the domains back to the public would be the worst scenario for them, especially if you were to post the addresses up somewhere public, allowing them to be caught up by some spammer or real domain squatter. Especially if they were outside of your local jurisdiction. So even when you're not holding them for ransom, in essence, you are. And of course, it's not really your fault. But don't worry, I expect this scenario would go away when domain tasting is finally revoked.
but the dog was probably named after the hobbit anyways...
All that's lacking is the "Beware of the Leopard" sign
Yes, this time they've gone too far
This has nothing to do with being fair. It's called scapegoating. Sure he may have had their approval, but when things sour, he'll find that it's pretty lonesome up at the top. Everyone else wants to just lay their sins on the scapegoat and send it into the wilderness.
If the 2 companies were splitting up a financial pie that didn't involve intruding into each other's customer space, they could have easily worked out an agreement, maybe equal advertising space on each other's sites, shared advertising costs, thus profiting both companies and strengthening each other's brand name. Instead one company benefits at the expense of the other, with the side effect of becoming notorious for the setting of bad legal precedence.
Exactly what did Microsoft learn? That tying up the competition in litigation will buy you time to further secure your market position? That it is better to work through shell companies instead of getting personally involved, even if the facade was so thin that anyone who was not actively trying to ignore it couldn't? That spending money on offensive litigation needs to be part of the annual budget?
The cake is a lie. And seriously, everyone knows that Hans shot first, why is this article even news?
software updates are a risk. it's the easiest way for Apple to render the boxes unusable.
Can you slipstream it into an install less than 700mb?
It's been pointed out before, but the RIAA doesn't actually file any suits, instead referring the case to the parent corporation whose rights had been allegedly infringed. Any countersuit would have to include that corporation. No weaselling out of that one, nope.
It may not have reached a jury, but it's definitely caught the public eye. Here on slashdot we're just a bunch of unorganized geeks, not necessarily from America, and not likely to put up a concerted defense. But perception out there is changing. Once lawyers smell money in the air from defensive and counter-offensive lawsuits against the likes of Sony, Warner, EMI and Universal (deep pockets to draw money from), we could have a case of ambulance-chasing here.
You'd have to go quite far to convince someone to kill himself and a load of innocent passengers in order to protect your own damning evidence though. How on earth would anyone pull it off?