Another thing -- when I'm typing, and there is an error, I'm right there to correct it.
With voice recog, at least right now, editing it after it's been screwed up by Google or whatever is more of a PITA than just typing it out in the first place.
Trying to actually do decent editing (at least on my S7) is seriously annoying. Cursor positioning is flaky as hell, parts of messages disappear above and blow the edit point, I try to drag the edit point and it scrolls up or down so fast there's no chance of actually getting where I meant to go...
I grant you that this kind of thing is the result of bad design at some level in Android or some library most everyone is using, and could be corrected... but right now, it's SN/AFU. That's a big factor in why editing as I go, rather than trying to get "somewhere" in something already containing lots of text, is much easier on my temper.
That said, I would welcome 99.99999% accurate voice recog. Not holding my breath, though.
The sheer awe and excitement that rippled through the theater during the first brachiosaurus scene was a movie magic experience, something you can't get at home.
I can get the reaction myself, and that of my SO and our guests, if any. Plus then I can replay it. I am not saying your experience is not valid, just that for me, at least, there is nothing positive to be had in exeriencing a crowd of people I don't know (and frankly, have no interest in) react.
While I missed the issue in my first post and I regret that as I was trying to be accurate, the reason I missed it is because it's not something I value. Sometimes it takes another POV to step in and put the finger on "other" benefits.
it's like going on about the glory of spicy food -- to someone who doesn't like spicy food.:)
Sure. Like the Rocky Horror shows. Good point. If being part of a crowd is worth the price of admission to you, then that's super cool. Can't edit a slashdot post, so best I can do is acknowledge the point.
I don't think that's going to keep theaters alive, though. They need something you can't get at home that everyone craves. The artificial delay to arrival in the home is the best draw along those lines, IMO. Come some other tech that might not be practical or unduly difficult at home -- VR or huge 3D scenes for instance -- I can imagine a theater renaissance. That's right along the line of audience participation as well.
These are words specifically chosen to denigrate those who would, or do, stand on the shoulders of others.
I completely reject it - hook, line and sinker. I feel entirely justified in doing so as I have made my shoulders available to many, in multiple venues, for decades now.
Additionally, I observe that sans an enormous number of others who have come before us, we would all be hiding in caves, warmed only by piles of our own excrement.
Do you think IP creators are the low-paid slaves of humanity?
Speaking as an idea / product creator (of a considerable number of new things, BTW), I think it's perfectly reasonable to monetize an idea or discovery such that it benefits society at the same time that it benefits you substantially. I don't think it's a net positive for society if you act to restrain others from acting to benefit society.
No one is a slave in such circumstances. If you decide not to do X, no one is forcing you to. If you do, then by all means, get it out there and make a reasonable amount off it if that's practical. if the idea is truly of great magnitude, it won't be trivially reproducible. If it is simply a clever, basic realization, it will. In the former case, it is more deserving of reward, as it took more work, and it will be that much easier to monetize for those very reasons, assuming you don't actually hand out the source code and/or the theory; in the latter, anyone else in a similar position might have come up with it, and to me, that makes it of very little value in the first place. XOR a cursor onto a screen? Oy.
There's another thing. Software is a lot more like writing in that the hard infrastructure required can be close to zero (food, shelter and environmental control.) Whereas if you make hardware, the investment is almost always significant, and often is required to be very significant. In such a case, more protection seems reasonable to me, or those things simply won't get done. Whereas software... we already know that software is generated in massive reams under almost any imaginable set of circumstances, no protection seems to be required at all. Not that protection doesn't confer additional benefits, it does; but it clearly isn't required to secure the advances the constitution speaks of.
Are you sure? B didn't do jack to earn from A's hard work
Yes, I'm sure. I have no problem with B profiting off A's work, as long as A is rewarded if that's the idea/invention model A wishes to use, and society agrees to hand over X of value for Y invention / idea.
I get the impression that you are offended by people doing well if they didn't specifically do work to do well. I am not. I am offended by people prevented from doing well because others put up artificial barriers in a society that, at root, has more than enough largess for everyone to do well.
If you invent something, and you want to monetize it, I wish you well. I don't wish you the ability to prevent others from doing well. Clear?
You can put up as big a screen at home as you have room for, and money to spend. It's not even that expensive, especially as compared to the cumulative costs of a movie theater habit.
Once you have a system at home, you no longer have to put up with sitting by strangers breathing various horrors in your general direction; crying babies; talking people; missing sections of the movie because you needed to hit the head; incredibly expensive and limited "snacks"; spilled sodas running over your feet from behind; seating not specifically chosen by you (and frankly, unlikely to be comfortable); lack of privacy; interference from people using cellphones (or conversely, your inability to use one if you need to); being tied to the theater's schedule; being deluged with ads from every business with an ad budget and no way to mute the obnoxiousness; waiting in line; dealing with the weather; being unable to re-cue the movie to see something you didn't quite catch; dealing with a watch-once-per-huge-cost experience.
If you put some (not a lot of) effort into it, you can have much better theater seating than you're going to get out of 99.9999% of commercial theaters (reclining, soft, blanketed, your SO snuggled up right next to you with out an armrest in someone's soft parts, perfect viewing position every time.) Great sound is easy too. "Largeness" is primarily about resolution and seating distance, so it's really more tricky to get right if you want to please a larger number of viewers. If you are most concerned about you and your SO, for instance, you can set thing s up very easily so the same amount of your visual field is covered, you have excellent resolution, and fabu sound. Going bigger is always awesome, but it's important to understand that the main benefit is the ability to seat and similarly gift a larger number of viewers with equivalent high resolution.
Theaters, near as I can tell, offer only the following:
o a place to take a date that's public, so they have a safety net re you climbing all over them in an unwanted fashion
o an action that is expensive, which can make a date feel like you consider them worthy of same (raise prostitution arguments here, I won't argue.)
o a largish screen, presuming you don't beat them at that game (which takes foresight and money in terms of home spaces)
o about 90 days (at present) one-upsmanship on home viewing timing; that, of course, is wholly artificial -- but quite real.
o higher resolution in some theaters, however this is almost always hugely compromised by non-sharp imagery. Some CGI does show this off, presuming you are seated at the correct distance to the screen, which isn't by any means a given. Even seating at optimum distance with just 1080p isn't all that easy to get right -- there's pretty much just a few feet, depth-wise, where normal visual acuity and that kind of resolution meet and derive full benefit. Likewise, there's only a small set of rows / seats in a commercial theater where you'll actually get the benefit of even higher resolution, presuming the movie actually uses such resolution.
...If those points aren't valuable to you (they aren't to me, at all) then the theater is now effectively a buggy whip. I haven't been to a movie theater in almost ten years (pretty much since projection systems dropped into a range where I decided they were doable.) And you know what? Although my system is moderately expensive, to the point where it blows most people's minds, based on the number of movies we own and have watched, many multiple times, I have saved a huge amount of money, which I then get to put into other things.
I understand the theater business owners' desire to preserve their business model. But I think the writing is on the wall. And I really think that a society that attempts to artificially protect someone's particular business model is making a mistake at any le
GPL is a form of copyright. Where the maker expresses their will for the code to be shared and altered. Without copyright on software that would allow people to misuse GPL code, without any form of recourse.
The GPL does not encourage copying and sharing. The GPL is a source of discouragement: it serves to lock out various kinds of sharing, specifically, if I add something to the code, I cannot share the results of that work unless I give away my work on it. It's nothing to do with the sharing of what was out there in the first place; that is in no way affected in its ability to be shared or copied if I add something and do whatever with it.
What the GPL actually accomplishes is say that "here is some code; we give it to you under the condition that you are coerced into giving away what you write as well." It's not about sharing the original code; it's about sharing any new work product of the recipient WRT that code. It's free as in "I'll give you this, but only if you give me anything back that you enhance or change if you want to share or sell", with the coercive addition of "if you don't give me back anything you enhance or change and you attempt to share or sell, you can be dragged through the legal system naked, backwards and across broken glass."
As a software author, I consider the GPL a neon-lit sign to "stay away, stay far away." As someone who actually wants my work to be shared, I release it with no conditions on what you may do with what I wrote, or anything you might add or change, except that you can't say that I, and others, can't be restrained in any way from continuing to share what I wrote freely. Because then my code will actually be free to share. I make no representation about, or claim upon, your code -- because that would be a dick move. Which, as no doubt you see coming, is exactly what I consider the GPL.
Software is technology and technology should be patentable otherwise it will become a free-for-all for tech thieves who want to profit from other people's technologies
The patent system isn't in place to keep B from profiting from A. The patent system is in place to, and I quote,
promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries
So first, to address your concern: can software authors profit from a truly new software idea without software patents? Sure we can. The software industry thrived prior to software patents. We can see by the "limited times" portion of the above that unlimited profit was not the goal. The inventor was to benefit somewhat, so society could benefit. So the question I would ask here is, do patents really benefit all authors and inventors? I think it's pretty clear they benefit all wealthy authors and inventors, and screw the small ones sideways with barbed wire. But that's just my opinion - as a small author and inventor.
Second, without patents, can science and the useful arts progress without software patents? Same answer: Yes, and that was also made obvious by the time prior to software patents, and for that matter, by the progress made since then by those who have not availed themselves of the patent system.
Third, can you "secure for a limited time the exclusive right to software author's respective writings and discoveries"? Yes. Copyright takes care of the writing end, and rather overwhelmingly at this point. You wrote the c code, and if someone takes it, you can show that. In addition, a new invention can't be reverse engineered until it's public, which points emphasizes the value of both trade secret and secure development.
Finally, I contend that patents, as clumsy, difficult, expensive legal procedures prone to repeated trips through the courts, are a tool that provide considerably more leverage to large, wealthy players than to "authors and inventors", and as such, they do more harm to the general level of creativity and useful conceptual churn than they are worth to society in general, which is clearly the actual goal of the above constitutional clause, as specified by the opening: "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".
I think the judge has it right.
Sadly, this was a concurring opinion, not a majority opinion, and as such it has no legal weight. Those of us who agree can only hope that his concurrence serves as a springboard for (eventually) convincing the others on his bench, or that the case is appealed to a higher court, and such convincing happens at that level, despite being completely free of incoming legal weight. I wouldn't hold my breath, frankly. Big money has a way of tilting the playing field rather consistently. But it's a single ray of light in an otherwise very dark situation, and I'm happy to admire it.
It is not reasonable to have faith in a system where public decisions are taken for secret reasons which result in well-known public disastrous outcomes.
Other than faith that the results will be terrible.
Genesis 6:3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years
Yes, sure, that's why Jeanne Calment lived to 122.
Not to mention that whole 930-years thing laid out in chapter five of the Book of Genesis (OT.) But by all means, pick the passages that support the pop culture blather of the day, and ignore the rest.
The Lord is clearly all-powerful... and innumerate. Or dishonest. Or fiction.
You cannot have free speech if you know you're listened and afraid of what might happen.
Ah, but you can if you're listened to and you're not afraid of what might happen, which is the case for the vast majority of the US population. Pick your reason: ignorance, disinterest, assumption of innocence — but [waves hand at Internet] you can see that there is very little of "I am afraid to speak" going on. And some of the things people say.... oy.:)
The problem there is that they are mixing up surveillance issues with speech issues; the one is distinct from the other in some very important ways.
Surveillance is out of control pretty much everywhere, if for no other reason than the bad actors are running completely loose worldwide. Government and corporate. Speech, however, can exist in a country that allows it, regardless if a government is looking at it, or not.
Reporters tend to do their own gnarly things with speech anyway; they have a soapbox, and it is almost impossible not to serve some viewpoint when on it. I do wish the news was, you know, news, and not opinion, but even picking what stories to cover (and so, by extension, what stories not to cover), some issues get attention, and others don't. That happens at the editorial, reporting, and news consumer reading level, often with leverage from advertisers applied quite strongly.
In the context of that kind of mess, I still wave a flag for being as free as possible to say what you want.
The concern is that in most respects, the US offers one of the wider definitions of freedom of speech. It's not perfect, but it really is better than most. Given US control, you can expect that to be reflected in management of the system.
US control is gone. So we will see what that brings.
Thinking about freedom of speech issues in Europe and the middle east, some countries have applied restrictions that far exceed those imposed by the US. Germany, Iran, etc. come to mind. So the question arises as to how much influence they will be able to exert upon the new management.
Yes, this is excellent! With this available, now I won't have to suffer with non-pornographic image retrievals and suggestions any more from these stupid image search engines. Finally!
Slashdot Mirror
Another thing -- when I'm typing, and there is an error, I'm right there to correct it.
With voice recog, at least right now, editing it after it's been screwed up by Google or whatever is more of a PITA than just typing it out in the first place.
Trying to actually do decent editing (at least on my S7) is seriously annoying. Cursor positioning is flaky as hell, parts of messages disappear above and blow the edit point, I try to drag the edit point and it scrolls up or down so fast there's no chance of actually getting where I meant to go...
I grant you that this kind of thing is the result of bad design at some level in Android or some library most everyone is using, and could be corrected... but right now, it's SN/AFU. That's a big factor in why editing as I go, rather than trying to get "somewhere" in something already containing lots of text, is much easier on my temper.
That said, I would welcome 99.99999% accurate voice recog. Not holding my breath, though.
I can get the reaction myself, and that of my SO and our guests, if any. Plus then I can replay it. I am not saying your experience is not valid, just that for me, at least, there is nothing positive to be had in exeriencing a crowd of people I don't know (and frankly, have no interest in) react.
While I missed the issue in my first post and I regret that as I was trying to be accurate, the reason I missed it is because it's not something I value. Sometimes it takes another POV to step in and put the finger on "other" benefits.
it's like going on about the glory of spicy food -- to someone who doesn't like spicy food. :)
Sure. Like the Rocky Horror shows. Good point. If being part of a crowd is worth the price of admission to you, then that's super cool. Can't edit a slashdot post, so best I can do is acknowledge the point.
I don't think that's going to keep theaters alive, though. They need something you can't get at home that everyone craves. The artificial delay to arrival in the home is the best draw along those lines, IMO. Come some other tech that might not be practical or unduly difficult at home -- VR or huge 3D scenes for instance -- I can imagine a theater renaissance. That's right along the line of audience participation as well.
These are words specifically chosen to denigrate those who would, or do, stand on the shoulders of others.
I completely reject it - hook, line and sinker. I feel entirely justified in doing so as I have made my shoulders available to many, in multiple venues, for decades now.
Additionally, I observe that sans an enormous number of others who have come before us, we would all be hiding in caves, warmed only by piles of our own excrement.
Speaking as an idea / product creator (of a considerable number of new things, BTW), I think it's perfectly reasonable to monetize an idea or discovery such that it benefits society at the same time that it benefits you substantially. I don't think it's a net positive for society if you act to restrain others from acting to benefit society.
No one is a slave in such circumstances. If you decide not to do X, no one is forcing you to. If you do, then by all means, get it out there and make a reasonable amount off it if that's practical. if the idea is truly of great magnitude, it won't be trivially reproducible. If it is simply a clever, basic realization, it will. In the former case, it is more deserving of reward, as it took more work, and it will be that much easier to monetize for those very reasons, assuming you don't actually hand out the source code and/or the theory; in the latter, anyone else in a similar position might have come up with it, and to me, that makes it of very little value in the first place. XOR a cursor onto a screen? Oy.
There's another thing. Software is a lot more like writing in that the hard infrastructure required can be close to zero (food, shelter and environmental control.) Whereas if you make hardware, the investment is almost always significant, and often is required to be very significant. In such a case, more protection seems reasonable to me, or those things simply won't get done. Whereas software... we already know that software is generated in massive reams under almost any imaginable set of circumstances, no protection seems to be required at all. Not that protection doesn't confer additional benefits, it does; but it clearly isn't required to secure the advances the constitution speaks of.
Yes, I'm sure. I have no problem with B profiting off A's work, as long as A is rewarded if that's the idea/invention model A wishes to use, and society agrees to hand over X of value for Y invention / idea.
I get the impression that you are offended by people doing well if they didn't specifically do work to do well. I am not. I am offended by people prevented from doing well because others put up artificial barriers in a society that, at root, has more than enough largess for everyone to do well.
If you invent something, and you want to monetize it, I wish you well. I don't wish you the ability to prevent others from doing well. Clear?
So are buggy whips.
You can put up as big a screen at home as you have room for, and money to spend. It's not even that expensive, especially as compared to the cumulative costs of a movie theater habit.
Once you have a system at home, you no longer have to put up with sitting by strangers breathing various horrors in your general direction; crying babies; talking people; missing sections of the movie because you needed to hit the head; incredibly expensive and limited "snacks"; spilled sodas running over your feet from behind; seating not specifically chosen by you (and frankly, unlikely to be comfortable); lack of privacy; interference from people using cellphones (or conversely, your inability to use one if you need to); being tied to the theater's schedule; being deluged with ads from every business with an ad budget and no way to mute the obnoxiousness; waiting in line; dealing with the weather; being unable to re-cue the movie to see something you didn't quite catch; dealing with a watch-once-per-huge-cost experience.
If you put some (not a lot of) effort into it, you can have much better theater seating than you're going to get out of 99.9999% of commercial theaters (reclining, soft, blanketed, your SO snuggled up right next to you with out an armrest in someone's soft parts, perfect viewing position every time.) Great sound is easy too. "Largeness" is primarily about resolution and seating distance, so it's really more tricky to get right if you want to please a larger number of viewers. If you are most concerned about you and your SO, for instance, you can set thing s up very easily so the same amount of your visual field is covered, you have excellent resolution, and fabu sound. Going bigger is always awesome, but it's important to understand that the main benefit is the ability to seat and similarly gift a larger number of viewers with equivalent high resolution.
Theaters, near as I can tell, offer only the following:
o a place to take a date that's public, so they have a safety net re you climbing all over them in an unwanted fashion
o an action that is expensive, which can make a date feel like you consider them worthy of same (raise prostitution arguments here, I won't argue.)
o a largish screen, presuming you don't beat them at that game (which takes foresight and money in terms of home spaces)
o about 90 days (at present) one-upsmanship on home viewing timing; that, of course, is wholly artificial -- but quite real.
o higher resolution in some theaters, however this is almost always hugely compromised by non-sharp imagery. Some CGI does show this off, presuming you are seated at the correct distance to the screen, which isn't by any means a given. Even seating at optimum distance with just 1080p isn't all that easy to get right -- there's pretty much just a few feet, depth-wise, where normal visual acuity and that kind of resolution meet and derive full benefit. Likewise, there's only a small set of rows / seats in a commercial theater where you'll actually get the benefit of even higher resolution, presuming the movie actually uses such resolution.
...If those points aren't valuable to you (they aren't to me, at all) then the theater is now effectively a buggy whip. I haven't been to a movie theater in almost ten years (pretty much since projection systems dropped into a range where I decided they were doable.) And you know what? Although my system is moderately expensive, to the point where it blows most people's minds, based on the number of movies we own and have watched, many multiple times, I have saved a huge amount of money, which I then get to put into other things.
I understand the theater business owners' desire to preserve their business model. But I think the writing is on the wall. And I really think that a society that attempts to artificially protect someone's particular business model is making a mistake at any le
The GPL does not encourage copying and sharing. The GPL is a source of discouragement: it serves to lock out various kinds of sharing, specifically, if I add something to the code, I cannot share the results of that work unless I give away my work on it. It's nothing to do with the sharing of what was out there in the first place; that is in no way affected in its ability to be shared or copied if I add something and do whatever with it.
What the GPL actually accomplishes is say that "here is some code; we give it to you under the condition that you are coerced into giving away what you write as well." It's not about sharing the original code; it's about sharing any new work product of the recipient WRT that code. It's free as in "I'll give you this, but only if you give me anything back that you enhance or change if you want to share or sell", with the coercive addition of "if you don't give me back anything you enhance or change and you attempt to share or sell, you can be dragged through the legal system naked, backwards and across broken glass."
As a software author, I consider the GPL a neon-lit sign to "stay away, stay far away." As someone who actually wants my work to be shared, I release it with no conditions on what you may do with what I wrote, or anything you might add or change, except that you can't say that I, and others, can't be restrained in any way from continuing to share what I wrote freely. Because then my code will actually be free to share. I make no representation about, or claim upon, your code -- because that would be a dick move. Which, as no doubt you see coming, is exactly what I consider the GPL.
The patent system isn't in place to keep B from profiting from A. The patent system is in place to, and I quote,
So first, to address your concern: can software authors profit from a truly new software idea without software patents? Sure we can. The software industry thrived prior to software patents. We can see by the "limited times" portion of the above that unlimited profit was not the goal. The inventor was to benefit somewhat, so society could benefit. So the question I would ask here is, do patents really benefit all authors and inventors? I think it's pretty clear they benefit all wealthy authors and inventors, and screw the small ones sideways with barbed wire. But that's just my opinion - as a small author and inventor.
Second, without patents, can science and the useful arts progress without software patents? Same answer: Yes, and that was also made obvious by the time prior to software patents, and for that matter, by the progress made since then by those who have not availed themselves of the patent system.
Third, can you "secure for a limited time the exclusive right to software author's respective writings and discoveries"? Yes. Copyright takes care of the writing end, and rather overwhelmingly at this point. You wrote the c code, and if someone takes it, you can show that. In addition, a new invention can't be reverse engineered until it's public, which points emphasizes the value of both trade secret and secure development.
Finally, I contend that patents, as clumsy, difficult, expensive legal procedures prone to repeated trips through the courts, are a tool that provide considerably more leverage to large, wealthy players than to "authors and inventors", and as such, they do more harm to the general level of creativity and useful conceptual churn than they are worth to society in general, which is clearly the actual goal of the above constitutional clause, as specified by the opening: "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".
I think the judge has it right.
Sadly, this was a concurring opinion, not a majority opinion, and as such it has no legal weight. Those of us who agree can only hope that his concurrence serves as a springboard for (eventually) convincing the others on his bench, or that the case is appealed to a higher court, and such convincing happens at that level, despite being completely free of incoming legal weight. I wouldn't hold my breath, frankly. Big money has a way of tilting the playing field rather consistently. But it's a single ray of light in an otherwise very dark situation, and I'm happy to admire it.
It is not reasonable to have faith in a system where public decisions are taken for secret reasons which result in well-known public disastrous outcomes.
Other than faith that the results will be terrible.
Hilarious. But do carry on. Always fun to see the superstitious flounder about. :)
Funny... refuting chapter 6 with Jeanne Calment living to 122 in contemporary times.
Bases covered, you see.
You should pay attention to that Presley quote in your sig. A better formulation, though, is:
Objective reality is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it isn't going away.
You can quote me if you like. :)
Yes, sure, that's why Jeanne Calment lived to 122.
Not to mention that whole 930-years thing laid out in chapter five of the Book of Genesis (OT.) But by all means, pick the passages that support the pop culture blather of the day, and ignore the rest.
The Lord is clearly all-powerful... and innumerate. Or dishonest. Or fiction.
I read TFS title as "...criminalize mimes"
So naturally, I figured that they had a problem with players of Twisted Metal.
As I said, the US is imperfect. But as the old saw goes, and particularly so WRT freedom of speech, it's the worst -- except for all the others.
I'd rather have an Internet where I can speak about superstition (and religion - but I repeat myself) without being stepped on for "intolerance."
This is an interesting read. Once you click the advertising sludge out of the way, sigh.
Ah, but you can if you're listened to and you're not afraid of what might happen, which is the case for the vast majority of the US population. Pick your reason: ignorance, disinterest, assumption of innocence — but [waves hand at Internet] you can see that there is very little of "I am afraid to speak" going on. And some of the things people say.... oy. :)
Yes, that's precisely what I was saying. It's a huge change, one that could bring additional restrictions on speech.
Thanks for putting such a fine point on it. :)
The problem there is that they are mixing up surveillance issues with speech issues; the one is distinct from the other in some very important ways.
Surveillance is out of control pretty much everywhere, if for no other reason than the bad actors are running completely loose worldwide. Government and corporate. Speech, however, can exist in a country that allows it, regardless if a government is looking at it, or not.
Reporters tend to do their own gnarly things with speech anyway; they have a soapbox, and it is almost impossible not to serve some viewpoint when on it. I do wish the news was, you know, news, and not opinion, but even picking what stories to cover (and so, by extension, what stories not to cover), some issues get attention, and others don't. That happens at the editorial, reporting, and news consumer reading level, often with leverage from advertisers applied quite strongly.
In the context of that kind of mess, I still wave a flag for being as free as possible to say what you want.
The concern is that in most respects, the US offers one of the wider definitions of freedom of speech. It's not perfect, but it really is better than most. Given US control, you can expect that to be reflected in management of the system.
US control is gone. So we will see what that brings.
Thinking about freedom of speech issues in Europe and the middle east, some countries have applied restrictions that far exceed those imposed by the US. Germany, Iran, etc. come to mind. So the question arises as to how much influence they will be able to exert upon the new management.
Oh well. Brave new world, folks. Onward!
You're reeling from poor reading comprehension.
TFS said "biggest names", not "big names."
There are far more than 50 home audio manufacturers, and of that set, 50 of them will be the biggest.
Carry on.
Are you talking about cardesian co-ordinates?
Yes, this is excellent! With this available, now I won't have to suffer with non-pornographic image retrievals and suggestions any more from these stupid image search engines. Finally!
Wait, it does what?
You really shouldn't encourage me. :)
This conversation does seem to have a pretty high rate of change, doesn't it?
Well, if you were more coordinated, you'd feel better about it. Get my point?