To do it would be ahuman. To strive for it, though, is what the job entails. To say, "I'm going to be coloured by my past in my future decisions as a SC justice, and I see no reason to apologise for it" is a far cry from "I can't deny that my past colours my perceptions, but I will do everything I can to overcome that to objectively apply the law as it is available at the time."
Just my interpretation. Obviously coloured by my past, but I'm not applying for a job as a judge or justice.
Actually, I think that, excepting people of "public interest" (read: celebrities, politicians, etc.), yes, they are required not to disclose this information. (Mind you, I don't really see "celebrities" as people who should necessarily have their lives open to the public, either, but, hey, I don't get to make the rules.)
One person's bloat is another's core functionality. At least I think that's what the old saying is... anyway, handling RTL languages is "bloat" to me as I'm unilingual (and not always even that many). That said, I'm not decrying it - I recognise that it's core for others (at $work, we get to support 30 languages, including RTL's and double-byte languages). Honestly, I only buy the "bloat" argument from those who have Pentium III's with 128MB of RAM and 50-100GB of disk space where this starts to get significant. My box is large enough that I can merely concern myself with "does it do the job I need it to do?" and ignore the cruft. i.e., it's almost big enough to run Vista.
Even I, jaded as I am against all things marketing, can't honestly say they're trying to tout it as if they invented it when they said "This is very much like the Firefox extensions system"! That's so far removed from "we invented it" that it's just laughable to claim it. If anything, this is their marketing saying, "We get it, people. Extending things without having to actually modify our source code has value to our users, and we're providing it." This should be applauded, not lauded.
Well, not against gas-powered cars, but in an all-electric race, perhaps... (if anything gets electric cars kick-started in the public consciousness, it'd be an all-electric indy or something)
Pretty much by definition, a "hoopy frood", being someone who is hip and cool, is in no need of any Salmon of Doubt, as their hipness and coolness is deserved and unshakable. And this is why Zaphod is a poster-boy for hoopy-froodiness.
WTF? Did you not check the *rest* of KDE in the same timeframe? KDE 4.X is not feature-complete when compared to 3.5, nor even half as stable. They did a ground-up rewrite with a new version of Qt, taking advantage of all sorts of eye-candy that Qt 4 provided. The rewrite of the GUI under the release-early-release-often motto is exactly what the entire KDE culture was undergoing through that time.
Sure, I use it. I provide many bug reports. I ensure I enable the debugging stuff to help with said bug reports. But I sure as heck don't anticipate it being at the same level as the 3.5 version.
Now, if you simply want to disagree with the release-early-release-often manifesto, that's fine, that's your prerogative. But let's at least call it for what it is. It's not just Amarok, it's the entire KDE 4 movement.
Now, if *no one* transitioned to the new version, then we'd be stuck. Without those users testing, we'd simply never get to the next version.
Provide your feedback, but please be civil about it. If you don't like the new version, by all means, stick with the old version. No one is stopping you. It's not like you paid for this.
[...] them and their children's children's children.
You sure you only want to cover, what, 50-ish years? You do realise the last ones there will all expect to inherit the non-working '76 car (or pieces thereof) when the oldest ones kick the bucket, right? And many of them will likely have legitimate claims thereto just on the basis of likely being conceived there...
All the lawyers are doing is mitigating, not eliminating, the injustice that RIAA has already done. Time for a car analogy: you get in a fender-bender and it's 100% the other guy's fault. That's injustice. Mitigating the injustice is that the other guy's insurance pays to repair your car (which does not bring it back to mint shape - the frame has been bent and put back, so it has additional stress points making the vehicle less safe in any following collision) and your hospital bills (which still means you missed out on work for a month or three, during which time a coworker got a promotion you were in line for).
The insurance company didn't eliminate the injustice did to you, but did mitigate it. You're better off with the insurance money than without. Much like the lawyers here: you're better off with the 70% back than without. And all with no risk to you - the lawyers are taking the risk.
I get time is money. Which is why I'm curious. Is it really less expensive to teach employees to shim applications (and deal with any fallout from where shimming doesn't work) vs just teaching them an operating system that works? Both involve up-front costs. Both hit your IT department. Both hit your users (mostly in a "shut up and use it" kind of way). But the question is: how much do you trust shimming to work vs just getting out of the cycle altogether? Is the risk of shimming considered when discussing the costs, or is it just the up-front costs that CFOs are looking at?
I'm just curious... what's the difference between having to shim ENTERPRISE CLASS SOFTWARE and, oh, say, just switching to Linux? Seriously, is this less work?
Just out of curiosity,Ray, if one were so inclined, how could an individual (or group) file an amicus brief with a court? Is there a boilerplate example to reference?
IANAL, but it goes something like this: first, you hire a lawyer...
How about a linux distro where you get vanilla distro for free, but the distributor charges extra to unlock chocolate sauce and cherries?
That's why I run Gentoo. I simply enable the "chocolate" and "cherry" USE flags, disable the "neopolitan" USE flag, and recompile world, and then I have unlimited chocolate and cherry sauce, until I find out that gnome doesn't work so well with "chocolate" enabled, and kde's "cherry" functionality conflicts with the "cherry" functionality in cups. Then I have to tweak the USE flags on a case-by-case basis, recompiling until I get everything with sufficient sauce while still working.
Of course, being Linux, you need to enable CONFIG_SAUCE in the kernel.
Why is that relevant? It's not "prior art" if it's not available publicly. Disclosed to employees under employment contracts: not public. Disclosed in a closed beta where all participants sign NDA's: not public. Released in an open beta: public (I think). Released for sale: public. Documented on external website: public.
You don't need to delay development to after you submit the patent. In fact, you aren't supposed to - theoretically, you must be able to show that your idea works before getting the patent, which means implementing it first.
(This doesn't mean I agree with the patent, merely that the application must precede public availability or discussion on the topic, which it seems to meet.)
Seriously, other than never being near it, I'm not aware of any 100% effective immunization against HIV. Which is about as useful, physically speaking, as having a 100% effective immunization against bullets when fired from a gun: if I'm already dead, it's not going to make things worse, and if it misses me, I'm okay, too.
It may be as simple as, "These techniques that work for SIV don't work for HIV. Maybe this new one does work." But, yes, I'd appreciate it if researchists didn't give the false impression that this is the first breakthrough in this area, much like I'd prefer that embryonic-stem-cell articles point out that nearly all breakthroughs with stem cells have come from "adult" stem cells, and that cord-blood stem cells are also known as "adult" stem cells. This kind of transparency would mitigate or eliminate the hysteria, as well as doing away with much of the politicisation of science, IMO.
Smart card readers are only as secure as the smart cards themselves.
And that's why I run my smartcard device through a rot13 filter, folks! And, when I'm getting truly paranoid about it, I skip straight to TRIPLE-rot13 filtering!
Slashdot Mirror
To do it would be ahuman. To strive for it, though, is what the job entails. To say, "I'm going to be coloured by my past in my future decisions as a SC justice, and I see no reason to apologise for it" is a far cry from "I can't deny that my past colours my perceptions, but I will do everything I can to overcome that to objectively apply the law as it is available at the time."
Just my interpretation. Obviously coloured by my past, but I'm not applying for a job as a judge or justice.
Actually, I think that, excepting people of "public interest" (read: celebrities, politicians, etc.), yes, they are required not to disclose this information. (Mind you, I don't really see "celebrities" as people who should necessarily have their lives open to the public, either, but, hey, I don't get to make the rules.)
Some of them forget to turn off fast-forward, too, so I just hit the FF button until I'm going 32x speed. Even that I find to be annoying.
One person's bloat is another's core functionality. At least I think that's what the old saying is... anyway, handling RTL languages is "bloat" to me as I'm unilingual (and not always even that many). That said, I'm not decrying it - I recognise that it's core for others (at $work, we get to support 30 languages, including RTL's and double-byte languages). Honestly, I only buy the "bloat" argument from those who have Pentium III's with 128MB of RAM and 50-100GB of disk space where this starts to get significant. My box is large enough that I can merely concern myself with "does it do the job I need it to do?" and ignore the cruft. i.e., it's almost big enough to run Vista.
Even I, jaded as I am against all things marketing, can't honestly say they're trying to tout it as if they invented it when they said "This is very much like the Firefox extensions system"! That's so far removed from "we invented it" that it's just laughable to claim it. If anything, this is their marketing saying, "We get it, people. Extending things without having to actually modify our source code has value to our users, and we're providing it." This should be applauded, not lauded.
And now that the banks are largely owned by the feds ... who really owns it?
VERY cool. Especially the crashes.
"Oh, that's gotta hurt - I just hope the driver doesn't get out of the car!"
Well, not against gas-powered cars, but in an all-electric race, perhaps... (if anything gets electric cars kick-started in the public consciousness, it'd be an all-electric indy or something)
No, more like it's prohibited as a matter of Household Security. (It keeps him from having affairs.)
Just to avoid all the old arguments on the topic, or maybe, by reference, repeating them: Czar Czar.
Pretty much by definition, a "hoopy frood", being someone who is hip and cool, is in no need of any Salmon of Doubt, as their hipness and coolness is deserved and unshakable. And this is why Zaphod is a poster-boy for hoopy-froodiness.
WTF? Did you not check the *rest* of KDE in the same timeframe? KDE 4.X is not feature-complete when compared to 3.5, nor even half as stable. They did a ground-up rewrite with a new version of Qt, taking advantage of all sorts of eye-candy that Qt 4 provided. The rewrite of the GUI under the release-early-release-often motto is exactly what the entire KDE culture was undergoing through that time.
Sure, I use it. I provide many bug reports. I ensure I enable the debugging stuff to help with said bug reports. But I sure as heck don't anticipate it being at the same level as the 3.5 version.
Now, if you simply want to disagree with the release-early-release-often manifesto, that's fine, that's your prerogative. But let's at least call it for what it is. It's not just Amarok, it's the entire KDE 4 movement.
Now, if *no one* transitioned to the new version, then we'd be stuck. Without those users testing, we'd simply never get to the next version.
Provide your feedback, but please be civil about it. If you don't like the new version, by all means, stick with the old version. No one is stopping you. It's not like you paid for this.
[...] them and their children's children's children.
You sure you only want to cover, what, 50-ish years? You do realise the last ones there will all expect to inherit the non-working '76 car (or pieces thereof) when the oldest ones kick the bucket, right? And many of them will likely have legitimate claims thereto just on the basis of likely being conceived there...
</stereotypes>
All the lawyers are doing is mitigating, not eliminating, the injustice that RIAA has already done. Time for a car analogy: you get in a fender-bender and it's 100% the other guy's fault. That's injustice. Mitigating the injustice is that the other guy's insurance pays to repair your car (which does not bring it back to mint shape - the frame has been bent and put back, so it has additional stress points making the vehicle less safe in any following collision) and your hospital bills (which still means you missed out on work for a month or three, during which time a coworker got a promotion you were in line for).
The insurance company didn't eliminate the injustice did to you, but did mitigate it. You're better off with the insurance money than without. Much like the lawyers here: you're better off with the 70% back than without. And all with no risk to you - the lawyers are taking the risk.
I get time is money. Which is why I'm curious. Is it really less expensive to teach employees to shim applications (and deal with any fallout from where shimming doesn't work) vs just teaching them an operating system that works? Both involve up-front costs. Both hit your IT department. Both hit your users (mostly in a "shut up and use it" kind of way). But the question is: how much do you trust shimming to work vs just getting out of the cycle altogether? Is the risk of shimming considered when discussing the costs, or is it just the up-front costs that CFOs are looking at?
I'm just curious ... what's the difference between having to shim ENTERPRISE CLASS SOFTWARE and, oh, say, just switching to Linux? Seriously, is this less work?
Do you go around on IRC as Cthon98? Just wonderin'.
That's called an "iPhone". :-P
Just out of curiosity,Ray, if one were so inclined, how could an individual (or group) file an amicus brief with a court? Is there a boilerplate example to reference?
IANAL, but it goes something like this: first, you hire a lawyer...
How about a linux distro where you get vanilla distro for free, but the distributor charges extra to unlock chocolate sauce and cherries?
That's why I run Gentoo. I simply enable the "chocolate" and "cherry" USE flags, disable the "neopolitan" USE flag, and recompile world, and then I have unlimited chocolate and cherry sauce, until I find out that gnome doesn't work so well with "chocolate" enabled, and kde's "cherry" functionality conflicts with the "cherry" functionality in cups. Then I have to tweak the USE flags on a case-by-case basis, recompiling until I get everything with sufficient sauce while still working.
Of course, being Linux, you need to enable CONFIG_SAUCE in the kernel.
Why is that relevant? It's not "prior art" if it's not available publicly. Disclosed to employees under employment contracts: not public. Disclosed in a closed beta where all participants sign NDA's: not public. Released in an open beta: public (I think). Released for sale: public. Documented on external website: public.
You don't need to delay development to after you submit the patent. In fact, you aren't supposed to - theoretically, you must be able to show that your idea works before getting the patent, which means implementing it first.
(This doesn't mean I agree with the patent, merely that the application must precede public availability or discussion on the topic, which it seems to meet.)
What's that, death?
Seriously, other than never being near it, I'm not aware of any 100% effective immunization against HIV. Which is about as useful, physically speaking, as having a 100% effective immunization against bullets when fired from a gun: if I'm already dead, it's not going to make things worse, and if it misses me, I'm okay, too.
It may be as simple as, "These techniques that work for SIV don't work for HIV. Maybe this new one does work." But, yes, I'd appreciate it if researchists didn't give the false impression that this is the first breakthrough in this area, much like I'd prefer that embryonic-stem-cell articles point out that nearly all breakthroughs with stem cells have come from "adult" stem cells, and that cord-blood stem cells are also known as "adult" stem cells. This kind of transparency would mitigate or eliminate the hysteria, as well as doing away with much of the politicisation of science, IMO.
Smart card readers are only as secure as the smart cards themselves.
And that's why I run my smartcard device through a rot13 filter, folks! And, when I'm getting truly paranoid about it, I skip straight to TRIPLE-rot13 filtering!
The poor kid has an uncle who is on /. - I'm not really sure the poor kid had a chance to begin with.