The HRM went a long way toward getting me off my butt and dropping pounds because it provided metrics and feedback that I could understand and affect.
For me, it is the exact reverse. Exercising is already such a pain in the ass that adding anything else to complicate the process is just further encouragement to just blow it all off and forget about it.
Way too many people prefer "form over function" - I chalk it up to a completely self-centered view of the world "if it looks OK on my computer, it must work fine for everyone else too." They also seem to forget that they are in business to make money and every single customer that can't use their website is a lost sale, "pretty over profit"
Or maybe he's got a concealed carry permit and a gun. In my state, that comes up in the computer records, so there's pretty good odds that the officer knows you might be armed.... I'm sure as hell going to let an officer know if there's a 357 magnum 3 inches above my wallet before I go to pull my ID out
Rright. Because mr supine there just wrote all of that out but decided to leave out the fact that he's carrying.
A cop who assumes someone is any less likely to be armed because they don't come up with a CCR in a database is precisely the wrong kind of cop.
Sure - zero risk for the producer if you have a ransom. However, very few people will offer such ransoms. Again, who is going to offer $200M to produce LOTR? In fact, LOTR used quite a bit of no-name talent (who ever heard of Elijah Wood before LOTR?).
(A) Fellowship of the ring was a fluke, big dollars spent on people with little background rarely happens in any industry. Basing your argument on that case is a terrible idea because it is not representative.
(B) The fact that you think the "ransom" must come from a single group or entity tells me that you are shooting from the hip, that indeed you really are ignorant of implications of the models of I've pointed out. Given that you basically don't have the background to say something new, I'm really not interested in what you have to say, because well, I've heard it all before and I am not your teacher. Educate yourself on the topic instead of just arguing from ignorance and then we can have a discussion.
You write as if the current copyright model does not create its own set of problems for SOME productions. Just how many 50M+ productions would cost that much without the risk-avoiding behaviour of the studios paying out 20M+ salaries to big name talent? Because the ransom model can guarantee profit before a dime is spent on production, the need to pay big names in order to reduce risk of failure at the box office is eliminated.
Trust me - if you got rid of IP laws entirely you'd see entire industries go under.
Yes, we agree. Just as plenty of industries have gone under over the years when technology made them irrelevant. Stagnation is bad, especially legally mandated stagnation.
Who would even employ scientists? Right now they're mostly employed in industries where IP protects their research, or in academia.
I'm pretty sure you just don't fully grasp the implications of being paid for your work. Maybe its because I've worked contract for most of my life so it comes more naturally to me, but it shouldn't be that hard to sit down and see how pretty much all applied science doesn't require ip protection - just a willingness of a consortium of companies to contract for development in coopetition. Companies that want to keep their research to themselves can rely on that law of nature - the trade secret.
The problem is that there is no way to make people pay for the labour if the end result of that labour can be copied freely.
You could not be more wrong, although that is precisely with the MAFIAA wants you and Congress to think. Look up the ransom model. There are all kinds of variations on it - like the street performer protocol, product placement advertising, per buyer customization (think your girlfriend's favorite song with her name in the lyrics, or your kid's favorite cartoon with versions of them in it), serial subscriptions, tie-ins to physical items, etc. And these aren't hypotheticals, people small and large, have been experimenting with these variations and in many cases have had a lot of success.
I expect so, as long as they are more conductive than the human body, then the current from the taser should use them rather than your body. I'd like to see long-sleeve and long-pants versions of their product. Thor-shield uses a conductive polyester which is probably more durable and cheaper than those garments though.
There are a few laws of nature, most laws made by man are just there because we wan't them to.
Why is stealing cars illegal? Thats because we don't like to get our cars stolen, it's not a law of nature it's there because we want it to.
Nope. Or at the very least nowhere near as directly as you've put it.
Stealing cars is illegal because (a) we don't like it but just as importantly (b) it is an enforceable law. Cars are inherently rivalrous and excludable. Software, and pretty much everything else categorized as "IP," is not. It's that (b) part that which is a law of nature that makes the human law practical enough to be worthwhile.
Immaterial rights is important today and will become even more important tomorrow, thats where the jobs will be created in the years to come.
No, "immaterial rights" are a house of cards. Far better to stick with what is enforceable - charging for the labor of creation rather than for the copying of creations because the labor, just like the cars, is rivalrous and excludable but the copying is neither. And then there is the entire problem that people LIKE to share stuff, we it is an inherent trait of humanity to share ideas, people gain social points by discovering cool stuff and giving it to their friends. Our entire civilizations is built on the sharing of disocveries and ideas. So, unlike stealing tangible objects such as cars, there is no clear consensus that "we don't like it." Thus "IP" laws go against the grain of human nature and the laws of nature - that's a certain recipe for failure.
Re:Seriously, don't taze me.
on
A Tour of Taser HQ
·
· Score: 2, Informative
And here is a link to the video on youtube where they demonstrate its use, including tasering a guy's head and it has no effect because his hat is lined with the material
Those are exactly the sort of cases I mean. As several of those cases show, the taser is being used even in cases where any other form of force is prohibited.
And Taser Inc actively promotes such usage with their "Drive-Stun" mode that is officially meant for "pain compliance."
That there is a man who has fully accepted that it is the people's job to make the lives of the police easier rather than the police's job to make the lives of the people easier.
Don't act like an animal and you won't get tazed. Simple really.
Its kind of ironic that all the smart-asses responding with that sentiment are doing so as ACs - the "acting like an animal" of the online world.
Re:Seriously, don't taze me.
on
A Tour of Taser HQ
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
For instance, what would happen if they tasered someone wearing one of these?
Try thor-shield instead. They try to only sell to cops, but the idea is so obvious (I found them while googling conductive fabric for taser defense) that the cheap chinese knock-off is inevitable.
P.S - A *very* important feature. I want a checkbox that says, "at no time will your money ever go to Rupert Murdoch".
Rupert Murdoch published Fight Club despite his own personal dislike for the moral of the story (no surprise that he'd dislike the moral since it was aimed squarely at him and his ilk). The guy ain't all bad.
Well, here in Virginia we occasionally execute those whom the evidence exonerates, because "they had their day in court, and their lawyer didn't get the evidence in on time." Just to show we're tough on crime, or something.
I'm thinking of Roger Keith Coleman.
The evidence didn't exonerate him until well after he was executed. Or at least that's what the wiki article you linked to says. The case in Texas was closer to what you describe - the arson investigators were proven to be a bunch of witchdoctors, but the new evidence was ignored before his execution. Thus proving that all the safety checks in the system don't amount to a hill of beans, despite Scalia's infantile logic.
OK so if MS really wanted to go open source to the degree meaningful to their business what should they do so Slashdot will say something positive?
The only thing they can do is walk the walk until they get to the point where they can point out just how long their actions have matched their words. There are no quick fixes for undoing a bad reputation.
And then you get executed by the state of Texas. c.f. the "arsonist" who "killed" his wife and children. They stuck a needle in him and killed him.
Sucks for him, great for the rest of us because it's a concrete example of an innocent man being falsely executed.
That prick Scalia thinks that there's never been a case of an innocent person being executed on death row before, otherwise (he claims) people would be shouting about it from the rooftops. While that is a ridiculous assumption, hardly worthy of an average teenager's ability to reason, much less a supreme court justice, he's finally got the arbitrarily high level of proof that he required.
Here, they are trying to dip their toes into Open Source, and the summary bashes them. Geez, guys, get a life!
The problem is that it is far too early to tell if this is just another attempt at "embrace, extend, extinguish" -- something MS has a very long and well documented history of doing, or the final stage of "ignorance, denial, attack, accept."
GNU 1984 -> Linux 1991 -> KDE 1996 -> Xorg 2004 ->
Xorg is the result of work that started in 1984 too -- no one would argue that GNU today is what it was back in 1984, so other parts of the system should get the same benefit of the doubt too.
I actually use Windows Vista at an actual company with an actual central file server somewhere, and I don't experience any of the problems you're talking about. Go ahead and wildly spitball, though!
Wow, "it works for me!" is now comprehensive proof, eh? I think you are the one 'spitballing' here - inconceivable that some configurations will have problems while others don't...
Slashdot Mirror
The HRM went a long way toward getting me off my butt and dropping pounds because it provided metrics and feedback that I could understand and affect.
For me, it is the exact reverse. Exercising is already such a pain in the ass that adding anything else to complicate the process is just further encouragement to just blow it all off and forget about it.
So the idea is that making it easier to leave google makes you more likely to stay with google?
Cast thy bread upon the waters: for thou shalt find it after many days.
Or, more succinctly, "function over form."
Way too many people prefer "form over function" - I chalk it up to a completely self-centered view of the world "if it looks OK on my computer, it must work fine for everyone else too." They also seem to forget that they are in business to make money and every single customer that can't use their website is a lost sale, "pretty over profit"
Or maybe he's got a concealed carry permit and a gun. In my state, that comes up in the computer records, so there's pretty good odds that the officer knows you might be armed. ...
I'm sure as hell going to let an officer know if there's a 357 magnum 3 inches above my wallet before I go to pull my ID out
Rright. Because mr supine there just wrote all of that out but decided to leave out the fact that he's carrying.
A cop who assumes someone is any less likely to be armed because they don't come up with a CCR in a database is precisely the wrong kind of cop.
Sure - zero risk for the producer if you have a ransom. However, very few people will offer such ransoms. Again, who is going to offer $200M to produce LOTR? In fact, LOTR used quite a bit of no-name talent (who ever heard of Elijah Wood before LOTR?).
(A) Fellowship of the ring was a fluke, big dollars spent on people with little background rarely happens in any industry. Basing your argument on that case is a terrible idea because it is not representative.
(B) The fact that you think the "ransom" must come from a single group or entity tells me that you are shooting from the hip, that indeed you really are ignorant of implications of the models of I've pointed out. Given that you basically don't have the background to say something new, I'm really not interested in what you have to say, because well, I've heard it all before and I am not your teacher. Educate yourself on the topic instead of just arguing from ignorance and then we can have a discussion.
You write as if the current copyright model does not create its own set of problems for SOME productions. Just how many 50M+ productions would cost that much without the risk-avoiding behaviour of the studios paying out 20M+ salaries to big name talent? Because the ransom model can guarantee profit before a dime is spent on production, the need to pay big names in order to reduce risk of failure at the box office is eliminated.
Trust me - if you got rid of IP laws entirely you'd see entire industries go under.
Yes, we agree. Just as plenty of industries have gone under over the years when technology made them irrelevant. Stagnation is bad, especially legally mandated stagnation.
Who would even employ scientists? Right now they're mostly employed in industries where IP protects their research, or in academia.
I'm pretty sure you just don't fully grasp the implications of being paid for your work. Maybe its because I've worked contract for most of my life so it comes more naturally to me, but it shouldn't be that hard to sit down and see how pretty much all applied science doesn't require ip protection - just a willingness of a consortium of companies to contract for development in coopetition. Companies that want to keep their research to themselves can rely on that law of nature - the trade secret.
The problem is that there is no way to make people pay for the labour if the end result of that labour can be copied freely.
You could not be more wrong, although that is precisely with the MAFIAA wants you and Congress to think. Look up the ransom model. There are all kinds of variations on it - like the street performer protocol, product placement advertising, per buyer customization (think your girlfriend's favorite song with her name in the lyrics, or your kid's favorite cartoon with versions of them in it), serial subscriptions, tie-ins to physical items, etc. And these aren't hypotheticals, people small and large, have been experimenting with these variations and in many cases have had a lot of success.
I expect so, as long as they are more conductive than the human body, then the current from the taser should use them rather than your body. I'd like to see long-sleeve and long-pants versions of their product. Thor-shield uses a conductive polyester which is probably more durable and cheaper than those garments though.
There are a few laws of nature, most laws made by man are just there because we wan't them to.
Why is stealing cars illegal? Thats because we don't like to get our cars stolen, it's not a law of nature it's there because we want it to.
Nope. Or at the very least nowhere near as directly as you've put it.
Stealing cars is illegal because (a) we don't like it but just as importantly (b) it is an enforceable law. Cars are inherently rivalrous and excludable. Software, and pretty much everything else categorized as "IP," is not. It's that (b) part that which is a law of nature that makes the human law practical enough to be worthwhile.
Immaterial rights is important today and will become even more important tomorrow, thats where the jobs will be created in the years to come.
No, "immaterial rights" are a house of cards. Far better to stick with what is enforceable - charging for the labor of creation rather than for the copying of creations because the labor, just like the cars, is rivalrous and excludable but the copying is neither. And then there is the entire problem that people LIKE to share stuff, we it is an inherent trait of humanity to share ideas, people gain social points by discovering cool stuff and giving it to their friends. Our entire civilizations is built on the sharing of disocveries and ideas. So, unlike stealing tangible objects such as cars, there is no clear consensus that "we don't like it." Thus "IP" laws go against the grain of human nature and the laws of nature - that's a certain recipe for failure.
I typoed the link to thor-shield, here it is raw
http://www.thorshield.com/
And here is a link to the video on youtube where they demonstrate its use, including tasering a guy's head and it has no effect because his hat is lined with the material
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y__ZmYhtbzo
Those are exactly the sort of cases I mean. As several of those cases show, the taser is being used even in cases where any other form of force is prohibited.
And Taser Inc actively promotes such usage with their "Drive-Stun" mode that is officially meant for "pain compliance."
Yep.
That there is a man who has fully accepted that it is the people's job to make the lives of the police easier rather than the police's job to make the lives of the people easier.
Don't act like an animal and you won't get tazed. Simple really.
Its kind of ironic that all the smart-asses responding with that sentiment are doing so as ACs - the "acting like an animal" of the online world.
For instance, what would happen if they tasered someone wearing one of these?
Try thor-shield instead. They try to only sell to cops, but the idea is so obvious (I found them while googling conductive fabric for taser defense) that the cheap chinese knock-off is inevitable.
He's in business. that is the general principle of it.
Everyone who reads slashdot isn't an OSX ween and has no idea what "Grand Central Dispatch" is.
Yeah, I thought Google bought Grand Central and was trying to figure out how their call routing tech had made it into Apple's hands.
P.S - A *very* important feature. I want a checkbox that says, "at no time will your money ever go to Rupert Murdoch".
Rupert Murdoch published Fight Club despite his own personal dislike for the moral of the story (no surprise that he'd dislike the moral since it was aimed squarely at him and his ilk). The guy ain't all bad.
Well, here in Virginia we occasionally execute those whom the evidence exonerates, because "they had their day in court, and their lawyer didn't get the evidence in on time." Just to show we're tough on crime, or something.
I'm thinking of Roger Keith Coleman.
The evidence didn't exonerate him until well after he was executed. Or at least that's what the wiki article you linked to says.
The case in Texas was closer to what you describe - the arson investigators were proven to be a bunch of witchdoctors, but the new evidence was ignored before his execution. Thus proving that all the safety checks in the system don't amount to a hill of beans, despite Scalia's infantile logic.
OK so if MS really wanted to go open source to the degree meaningful to their business what should they do so Slashdot will say something positive?
The only thing they can do is walk the walk until they get to the point where they can point out just how long their actions have matched their words. There are no quick fixes for undoing a bad reputation.
And then you get executed by the state of Texas. c.f. the "arsonist" who "killed" his wife and children. They stuck a needle in him and killed him.
Sucks for him, great for the rest of us because it's a concrete example of an innocent man being falsely executed.
That prick Scalia thinks that there's never been a case of an innocent person being executed on death row before, otherwise (he claims) people would be shouting about it from the rooftops. While that is a ridiculous assumption, hardly worthy of an average teenager's ability to reason, much less a supreme court justice, he's finally got the arbitrarily high level of proof that he required.
Here, they are trying to dip their toes into Open Source, and the summary bashes them. Geez, guys, get a life!
The problem is that it is far too early to tell if this is just another attempt at "embrace, extend, extinguish" -- something MS has a very long and well documented history of doing, or the final stage of "ignorance, denial, attack, accept."
Lol. Which is it?
A sample size of one is enough to disprove inherent behavior or numerous counter-examples are enough?
GNU 1984 ->
Linux 1991 ->
KDE 1996 ->
Xorg 2004 ->
Xorg is the result of work that started in 1984 too -- no one would argue that GNU today is what it was back in 1984, so other parts of the system should get the same benefit of the doubt too.
Wow, "it works for me!" is now comprehensive proof, eh?
It's all you need to disprove it as inherent behaviour.
Yeah right. I think your inductive reasoning is more than a little bit rusty if you think a sample size of one says anything about inherent behavior.
I actually use Windows Vista at an actual company with an actual central file server somewhere, and I don't experience any of the problems you're talking about. Go ahead and wildly spitball, though!
Wow, "it works for me!" is now comprehensive proof, eh?
I think you are the one 'spitballing' here - inconceivable that some configurations will have problems while others don't...