In the present case, it's not as if the infringer had published the cut-out pattern (or whatever) used to make those garments, they just published photos of people wearing them.
Excellent point. The "reading Harry Potter over the radio" analogy is inaccurate. It'd be more accurate to compare this with reading out an extract, or the blurb from the back cover.
This designer is just being a control freak. Here's hoping the US courts ignore him, otherwise a dangerous precendent will be set.
Your walk gave you some pretty useless info. Try once again, and this time count the users which are actually using the key.
I disagree that an observation of the now-prevalant standard layout is useless. Even if nobody apart from me uses it it's still the standard layout. Like I said before, I wasn't convinced at the time because of the politics of Microsoft imposing themselves on hardware, but it's actually a useful key, and has become standard. To not include it is just contrary.
As you are finding out, the windows key is a nonstandard addon. Lot of keyboards don't support it. My take is that IBM didn't want to mangle their keyboards even though a small number of their users use this key.
Yes, I found out it was a non-standard add-on back when it first appeared on keyboards. I think you're under-estimating its penetration now though.
A walk around the office of any company I've worked for in the past five years will reveal not a single keyboard (except for on the IBM Thinkpad) that doesn't have this key.
I'm not saying I think Microsoft should be allowed to dictate hardware to laptop manufacturers, but continuing to exclude that key to the detriment of easy keyboard migration is just plain arrogant. You can huff and puff about standard and non-standard all you like, but Microsoft won the argument over this button years ago.
I'll put it another way. I very much doubt Thinkpads would sell less well if they included the Windows key, but I know I wouldn't buy one until they did.
Inside the ThinkPad configuration program you can easily set the Windows shortcut key to the right alt key.
Firstly it's a corporate laptop, and it would probably breach my contract to fiddle with anything outside windows profile settings (even if I had the password). Secondly, I shouldn't have to re-learn my standard shortcut reflexes to satisfy the political posturing of some corporate marketing wonk.
Thanks for the tip though. Someone might find it useful.
And in terms of keyboard, I have not used a keyboard on a laptop I prefer to the thinkpad (this includes HPs, Dells, Apples and Toshibas).
My opinion's a little less flaterring.
Firstly, the positioning of the CTRL key is a complete nightmare. They moved it into the common position of the Windows key and replaced it with their own "FN" key. Personally I think that any key that doesn't aid typing or OS navigation should be kept out of the way. After all, how often am I going to switch between my laptop screen and a seperate monitor? Far less often than I need to copy and paste, but the CTRL key requires an awkward wrist movement because of their FN key.
Secondly, for a Windows laptop to be supplied without a Windows key in 2006 is pathetic... it throws half a dozen of my most commonly used key shortcuts straight out of the window. I don't know what kind of political pissing games they're playing with my keyboard but I wish they'd just stop it and let me decide which keys I want to press.
Here you're wrong, the USSR doesn't exist anymore. It was dissolved in 1991.
No, he's not wrong, on that score at least. The USSR launched the first of their GLONASS satellites in the 1980's, so it's perfectly justifiable to talk about the USSR in this context.
I can, but all of that falls into the feels-good political BS category. If we're talking NATURE and PHYSICS then all that matters is the result. 3,000 MT of carbon is 3,000 MT of carbon, whether it comes from 1,000,000 people boiling water or 1 guy char-broiling 1,000,000,000 fuzzy kittens.
If I understand your argument correctly, you're saying that the size of a nation's population is irrelevant when assessing what might be a fair level for atmospheric emmissions. By that logic, any tiny nation would be justified in demanding the right to pollute as much as the US, or China.
You're right to suggest that the atmosphere doesn't care where the emissions come from, but neither does it care what your nationality is. All that matters is the numbers, and if person X is pumping out 10 times the emmissions of person Y then they should expect to be asked to justify that.
The problem with Web 2.0 is that it is nothing more than a marketing term.
It's a label that describes a new way of thinking about product development on the web. Sure, people had similar ideas before, but now they're more pervasive (more heads means more ideas, good and bad). Sure, you could accomplish the same effects before XmlHttpRequest using various methods, but now you get an XML parser and some of the I/O housekeeping done for you. Sure, marketing people coined the phrase, but the product that they were marketing was built by developers first, they just described the methodology that the developers had used.
Product developers now have some fresh ideas. The crap ones will get washed away by the competition, and the worthwhile ones will be left.
"Web 2.0" may just be a marketing term to you, but to people who are actually involved in these projects (i.e. me) the gradually increasing standards support in browsers is making new things far more practical than they have been previously. You can bitch and whine all you like, but you can't change that.
Additionally, the X in AJAX doesn't really belong - if you run a protocol analyzer, you'll find XMLHTTPRequest doesn't actually send XML at all unless you explicitly send some XML. In fact it sends any plain text you pass it, and receives plain text back quite happily. But I suppose if it was called AJA it wouldn't be very buzzword compliant.
The "responseXML" property returns you a fully-parsed XML Document object. As far as I know this is the only way to get cross-browser XML support in Javascript without writing the parser yourself. I think that warrants an X in an acronym.
I am constantly suprised at the amount of traffic Craig gets with his horrific design. It's cluttered, the colors are lacking, and lacks any personality. It's just a big blob of links.
It's "cluttered" with content and functionality. The colours are plain but not unpleasant, and it's personality is "a big blob of links".
But then I remind myself that above all else, it's functional and has enough content to trump any bad design decisions. Content will always trump design. Even bad design.
"Bad" according to your criteria. I can't actually check what your personal tastes are because your website doesn't work. You don't own a black beret by any chance?
Let's just kick this "clean" nuclear energy out the window. Nuclear plants produce some of the most toxic substances known to man. (Plutonium comes to mind).
BZZZZT! Incorrect.
Plutonium and Uranium were both produced by... you guessed it... the stars! They are dug out of the ground, and refined before they are used as reactor fuel.
Space property rights are a very murky and ambiguous area...
It's murky until you realise that property rights in space are exactly the same as property rights on Earth. Property is established using the threat of violence.
In the case of personal property, that violence is distilled through the laws of a community, but the threat of being shot, beaten or dragged off to jail is still there.
In the case of national territory, the threat of violence is much less subtle.
I had a big jump in brain activity when I saw that, but it's because I was thinking, "Dinosaurs and humans lived millions of years apart, you idiots.
What makes you think that thought would cause a big jump in brain activity? If that jump occurred in the pedantry region of the brain I might be inclined to believe it, but otherwise I'd err on the side of brain activity being proportional to the sophistication of the process involved.
It's also largely curable by the same education which would reduce AIDS and practically eliminate tuberculosis and malaria.
I'm not disagreeing that education is bad, but specifically what type of education would "practically eliminate" malaria? I suspect you may be exaggerating a little, but by all means explain otherwise.
If you like m$ so be it but don't hide behind a cloak with this illogical crap about how they are doing things right in the browser market.
Right for whom? Companies act in the way that they think is right for them. Some of them think it's worth trying to keep the techno-utopian nerds happy, some think it's too expensive. The fact that you call them "m$" is a good indication that it'd take a large investment for them to get you to like them. You're just making their decision easier.
Bush's energy policy is not about oil, it's about funding for development in new technologies that will solve the polution problems, and incentives to use these new technologies when they do become available.
The best solution is to invest in technology that cleans emissions as well as investment in renewable power sources. If US companies are doing both of those things, then a drive to reduce emissions would surely be beneficial or neutral to the US economy.
The US would benefit even more if you could then trade excess emissions quotas with dirtier countries under the proposed treaties, or even better licence your new clean technologies to them.
Not science eh, then please exlplain the reason that the ice caps on Mars are melting.
There are plenty of possible explanations, and it's up to scientists to determine which ones are the most likely. Considering what we know about the effect of greenhouse gases and their levels over history it's unlikely that solar fluctuations are the sole cause of the current warming.
Your post sounds very much like you've leaped to the conclusion that the sun is the cause of both effects, and that therefore we can stick our heads back into the sand. If that is actually your opinion then you're a fool.
Therefore any experiment that could support Supersymmetry would tend to falsify Intelligent Design.
It would "tend" to falsify ID? I don't know what you meant by that, but it wouldn't be true that such an experiment would falsify ID.
Believers in ID did not become so by looking at the strong and weak nuclear forces. The suggestion that a single development (in an area of physics that most of these people don't even know about) could change their minds is either naive or dishonest.
The only way to disprove ID is to solve all of the unknowns in science, to such a degree that ID believers can no longer quibble over the definition of the word "theory". Personally I don't believe that's possible.
Slashdot Mirror
Suicide isn't an injury, it's a psychological state leading to quite irrational behavior...
Irrational behaviour like decomposition ;-)
(NOTE: I *do* work in a genetic lab. A *do* know what I'm speaking about)
I think you should be researching the sarcasm gene.
Some would say that the final three words of that sentence were superfluous.
Three? ;o)
In the present case, it's not as if the infringer had published the cut-out pattern (or whatever) used to make those garments, they just published photos of people wearing them.
Excellent point. The "reading Harry Potter over the radio" analogy is inaccurate. It'd be more accurate to compare this with reading out an extract, or the blurb from the back cover.
This designer is just being a control freak. Here's hoping the US courts ignore him, otherwise a dangerous precendent will be set.
Your walk gave you some pretty useless info. Try once again, and this time count the users which are actually using the key.
I disagree that an observation of the now-prevalant standard layout is useless. Even if nobody apart from me uses it it's still the standard layout. Like I said before, I wasn't convinced at the time because of the politics of Microsoft imposing themselves on hardware, but it's actually a useful key, and has become standard. To not include it is just contrary.
As you are finding out, the windows key is a nonstandard addon. Lot of keyboards don't support it. My take is that IBM didn't want to mangle their keyboards even though a small number of their users use this key.
Yes, I found out it was a non-standard add-on back when it first appeared on keyboards. I think you're under-estimating its penetration now though.
A walk around the office of any company I've worked for in the past five years will reveal not a single keyboard (except for on the IBM Thinkpad) that doesn't have this key.
I'm not saying I think Microsoft should be allowed to dictate hardware to laptop manufacturers, but continuing to exclude that key to the detriment of easy keyboard migration is just plain arrogant. You can huff and puff about standard and non-standard all you like, but Microsoft won the argument over this button years ago.
I'll put it another way. I very much doubt Thinkpads would sell less well if they included the Windows key, but I know I wouldn't buy one until they did.
Inside the ThinkPad configuration program you can easily set the Windows shortcut key to the right alt key.
Firstly it's a corporate laptop, and it would probably breach my contract to fiddle with anything outside windows profile settings (even if I had the password). Secondly, I shouldn't have to re-learn my standard shortcut reflexes to satisfy the political posturing of some corporate marketing wonk.
Thanks for the tip though. Someone might find it useful.
And in terms of keyboard, I have not used a keyboard on a laptop I prefer to the thinkpad (this includes HPs, Dells, Apples and Toshibas).
My opinion's a little less flaterring.
Firstly, the positioning of the CTRL key is a complete nightmare. They moved it into the common position of the Windows key and replaced it with their own "FN" key. Personally I think that any key that doesn't aid typing or OS navigation should be kept out of the way. After all, how often am I going to switch between my laptop screen and a seperate monitor? Far less often than I need to copy and paste, but the CTRL key requires an awkward wrist movement because of their FN key.
Secondly, for a Windows laptop to be supplied without a Windows key in 2006 is pathetic... it throws half a dozen of my most commonly used key shortcuts straight out of the window. I don't know what kind of political pissing games they're playing with my keyboard but I wish they'd just stop it and let me decide which keys I want to press.
Here you're wrong, the USSR doesn't exist anymore. It was dissolved in 1991.
No, he's not wrong, on that score at least. The USSR launched the first of their GLONASS satellites in the 1980's, so it's perfectly justifiable to talk about the USSR in this context.
I can, but all of that falls into the feels-good political BS category. If we're talking NATURE and PHYSICS then all that matters is the result. 3,000 MT of carbon is 3,000 MT of carbon, whether it comes from 1,000,000 people boiling water or 1 guy char-broiling 1,000,000,000 fuzzy kittens.
If I understand your argument correctly, you're saying that the size of a nation's population is irrelevant when assessing what might be a fair level for atmospheric emmissions. By that logic, any tiny nation would be justified in demanding the right to pollute as much as the US, or China.
You're right to suggest that the atmosphere doesn't care where the emissions come from, but neither does it care what your nationality is. All that matters is the numbers, and if person X is pumping out 10 times the emmissions of person Y then they should expect to be asked to justify that.
The problem with Web 2.0 is that it is nothing more than a marketing term.
It's a label that describes a new way of thinking about product development on the web. Sure, people had similar ideas before, but now they're more pervasive (more heads means more ideas, good and bad). Sure, you could accomplish the same effects before XmlHttpRequest using various methods, but now you get an XML parser and some of the I/O housekeeping done for you. Sure, marketing people coined the phrase, but the product that they were marketing was built by developers first, they just described the methodology that the developers had used.
Product developers now have some fresh ideas. The crap ones will get washed away by the competition, and the worthwhile ones will be left.
"Web 2.0" may just be a marketing term to you, but to people who are actually involved in these projects (i.e. me) the gradually increasing standards support in browsers is making new things far more practical than they have been previously. You can bitch and whine all you like, but you can't change that.
A serf on the other hand...
No, he meant smurf.
Additionally, the X in AJAX doesn't really belong - if you run a protocol analyzer, you'll find XMLHTTPRequest doesn't actually send XML at all unless you explicitly send some XML. In fact it sends any plain text you pass it, and receives plain text back quite happily. But I suppose if it was called AJA it wouldn't be very buzzword compliant.
The "responseXML" property returns you a fully-parsed XML Document object. As far as I know this is the only way to get cross-browser XML support in Javascript without writing the parser yourself. I think that warrants an X in an acronym.
I am constantly suprised at the amount of traffic Craig gets with his horrific design. It's cluttered, the colors are lacking, and lacks any personality. It's just a big blob of links.
It's "cluttered" with content and functionality. The colours are plain but not unpleasant, and it's personality is "a big blob of links".
But then I remind myself that above all else, it's functional and has enough content to trump any bad design decisions. Content will always trump design. Even bad design.
"Bad" according to your criteria. I can't actually check what your personal tastes are because your website doesn't work. You don't own a black beret by any chance?
Let's just kick this "clean" nuclear energy out the window. Nuclear plants produce some of the most toxic substances known to man. (Plutonium comes to mind).
BZZZZT! Incorrect.
Plutonium and Uranium were both produced by... you guessed it... the stars! They are dug out of the ground, and refined before they are used as reactor fuel.
Space property rights are a very murky and ambiguous area...
It's murky until you realise that property rights in space are exactly the same as property rights on Earth. Property is established using the threat of violence.
In the case of personal property, that violence is distilled through the laws of a community, but the threat of being shot, beaten or dragged off to jail is still there.
In the case of national territory, the threat of violence is much less subtle.
We might actually be able to pay off the national debt!!!
After the first trillion dollars of precious metals they might not be so precious any more.
I had a big jump in brain activity when I saw that, but it's because I was thinking, "Dinosaurs and humans lived millions of years apart, you idiots.
What makes you think that thought would cause a big jump in brain activity? If that jump occurred in the pedantry region of the brain I might be inclined to believe it, but otherwise I'd err on the side of brain activity being proportional to the sophistication of the process involved.
There's a balance point to be found somewhere between naïve and paranoid.
And we shall call it "naïvanoid".
It's also largely curable by the same education which would reduce AIDS and practically eliminate tuberculosis and malaria.
I'm not disagreeing that education is bad, but specifically what type of education would "practically eliminate" malaria? I suspect you may be exaggerating a little, but by all means explain otherwise.
If you like m$ so be it but don't hide behind a cloak with this illogical crap about how they are doing things right in the browser market.
Right for whom? Companies act in the way that they think is right for them. Some of them think it's worth trying to keep the techno-utopian nerds happy, some think it's too expensive. The fact that you call them "m$" is a good indication that it'd take a large investment for them to get you to like them. You're just making their decision easier.
Bush's energy policy is not about oil, it's about funding for development in new technologies that will solve the polution problems, and incentives to use these new technologies when they do become available.
The best solution is to invest in technology that cleans emissions as well as investment in renewable power sources. If US companies are doing both of those things, then a drive to reduce emissions would surely be beneficial or neutral to the US economy.
The US would benefit even more if you could then trade excess emissions quotas with dirtier countries under the proposed treaties, or even better licence your new clean technologies to them.
Not science eh, then please exlplain the reason that the ice caps on Mars are melting.
There are plenty of possible explanations, and it's up to scientists to determine which ones are the most likely. Considering what we know about the effect of greenhouse gases and their levels over history it's unlikely that solar fluctuations are the sole cause of the current warming.
Your post sounds very much like you've leaped to the conclusion that the sun is the cause of both effects, and that therefore we can stick our heads back into the sand. If that is actually your opinion then you're a fool.
Therefore any experiment that could support Supersymmetry would tend to falsify Intelligent Design.
It would "tend" to falsify ID? I don't know what you meant by that, but it wouldn't be true that such an experiment would falsify ID.
Believers in ID did not become so by looking at the strong and weak nuclear forces. The suggestion that a single development (in an area of physics that most of these people don't even know about) could change their minds is either naive or dishonest.
The only way to disprove ID is to solve all of the unknowns in science, to such a degree that ID believers can no longer quibble over the definition of the word "theory". Personally I don't believe that's possible.
If you are a scientist, you must acknowledge the law of conservation of matter. From where did matter come? What is its origin?
The law of conservation of matter huh? So go on, please explain how E = m*c*c conserves matter.
Sorry mate, but you're hanging over a big crocodile pit with nothing but a toothbrush to defend yourself. I'd suggest shutting up.