"Embrace and extend" was the original phrase, in which a company would "embrace" a standard with "minor extensions and enhancements", eventually rendering the original standard apparently incompatible with its implementations. As a simple example, consider Microsoft Internet Explorer, which became significantly incompatible with the HTML standard it was supposedly supporting; or Microsoft's implementation of Java in a non-transportable way. Microsoft's approach was described as "Embrace, extend and extinguish" during the failed antitrust case. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Monitors, and scopes, were 4x3 because TVs were 4x3. 1970s word-processing systems like Wang and Dialogic used CRTs portrait-mounted. Rotating monitors have been around for years, especially since LCD displays are so much easier to reorient than big heavy CRTs. This is not news.
The tech industry went through this argument before, and lost (mostly). Claiming that everyone is an "independent contractor", and thereby avoiding any responsibility for their actions or any responsibility to them as employees, has been argued for years. Uber can claim that they are "only" the communications broker, and they have nothing to do with actual rides in actual cars, but if they weren't organizing rides in cars there would be no reason for their communications, so yes, they're a cab company.
The problem is that using ad block can kind of be compared against messing with your electricity or water meter so you aren't billed for as much.
No. It's not messing with my meter; that would indeed be dishonest. It's more like making sure that I turn off all of the lights, and unplug all of the wall-wart transformers, and unplug anything else that I don't absolutely need, in order to avoid *using* extra so that I'm wasting something that I'm billed for.
You left out the potential "cost of funerals, cost of damage and death in crash area, cost of airframe replacement . .." An engine failure could be catastrophic. People who don't live in the New York City area may not fully appreciate just how many buildings the "Miracle on the Hudson" plane avoided crashing on when both engines were stopped by bird-strike, not to mention just how much trouble crashing into the George Washington Bridge along the way would have caused (it's the world's busiest motor vehicle bridge).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
Your.sig says "I'd rather be free to choose, even if I make the wrong choices." Getting into a gypsy cab in NYC was the last choice some people made, back in the bad old days of the 1990s. Personally, before I put my life in the hands of a cab driver, I'd like to have some idea that the driver is licensed and the cab was inspected at some point. There's a difference between bringing new technology to improve an old market, and doing an end-run around all of the rules."Wouldn't soccer be so much better if people could use their hands?"
Are you suggesting it would be a *better* situation if the phone company and/or post office were inspecting all of your messages? Because I certainly don't want them inspecting mine without due process. And no, the analog/digital divide doesn't matter; I'm sure the Stasi could hire enough people to listen in *all* *day*.
Can you explain why money transmission should be subject to laws that require criminal use of the service to be identified, while information transmission should be exempted from any such requirement?
Can you explain why those money transmission laws have been used to take money away from totally innocent small businesses who happen, by sheer coincidence, to make a few deposits of just-under the "reporting" limit? (Which obviously means that the stated reporting limit is NOT the real reporting limit.) Can you explain, at a more basic level, why it's acceptable for banks to be reporting legal transactions to the government, when it's so much easier for a real crook to deal in cash?
The telephone company provides a service that is widely used for conversations of ALL sorts, from totally innocent to totally evil. Would you suggest having staff eavesdrop on every conversation? The postal service delivers all sorts of mail, from love letters to suspicious white powder; is it the postman's fault if you get a "Dear John" letter?
From the other side: Banks keep money in vaults; jewelry shops are required to take valuables out of window displays and secure them when the shop is closed; so why did Sony have its valuables where anyone could access them? Not blaming the victim here - theft is theft - but, paralleling your example of securing a lorry, there's a big difference between someone breaking into a locked car and hotwiring it, and someone driving away a running car with the keys in and the door actually open outside a coffee shop. (happened in our town.)
There are "facts" and there are "beliefs". The difference is important. If you take the position that all "facts" are just "beliefs" or matters of opinion, then science and engineering and technology don't work very well.
... isn't that the usual argument from proponents of surveillance on everybody else?
That said, there IS a problem with privacy, even though this video will technically become a public record. Police see people at their worst and most vulnerable moments, and there's a big difference between "one or two human beings saw me" and "video of me is plastered online". (Note - I'm not talking about criminals, I'm talking about victims, or people in accidents, or medical emergencies.) Access to the video should be limited the same way that crime scene and autopsy photos are limited (or supposed to be) - anyone can look in city hall, but not copy or distribute. OTOOH video being "lost" or "missing" is blatant evidence that someone is hiding something.
Go walk into a biker bar, walk up to the guy with the most tattoos and chains, and insult his mother. Go ahead, exercise your free speech. See what happens.
re: "unpleasantly sharp attacks" - Jon Stewart on The Daily Show points out that people are liars, cheats, and/or morons, and may insult them as well. But he never *threatens* anyone. The difference is pretty clear.
Words are not deeds, but *saying* words *is* a deed. That's why there are concepts like "incitement to riot". Note that "assault" does not mean "harming someone"; it means "threatening to harm someone". (The actual harm is "battery".) Your speech is also restricted in other ways: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States)
Try walking into a bar near a police station and yelling "This is a stickup!"
Slashdot Mirror
wait a minute - since when has "being crap" stopped anyone from showing a movie?
"Embrace and extend" was the original phrase, in which a company would "embrace" a standard with "minor extensions and enhancements", eventually rendering the original standard apparently incompatible with its implementations. As a simple example, consider Microsoft Internet Explorer, which became significantly incompatible with the HTML standard it was supposedly supporting; or Microsoft's implementation of Java in a non-transportable way. Microsoft's approach was described as "Embrace, extend and extinguish" during the failed antitrust case. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
... getting burned and wrinkled . . .
Monitors, and scopes, were 4x3 because TVs were 4x3. 1970s word-processing systems like Wang and Dialogic used CRTs portrait-mounted. Rotating monitors have been around for years, especially since LCD displays are so much easier to reorient than big heavy CRTs. This is not news.
I'm presuming your standard has been affected by "Game of Thrones"?
The tech industry went through this argument before, and lost (mostly). Claiming that everyone is an "independent contractor", and thereby avoiding any responsibility for their actions or any responsibility to them as employees, has been argued for years. Uber can claim that they are "only" the communications broker, and they have nothing to do with actual rides in actual cars, but if they weren't organizing rides in cars there would be no reason for their communications, so yes, they're a cab company.
I think you're looking for the line "This is the kind of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put. ", whether or not Churchill actually wrote it.
Which means they can just go forever, without telling anybody. Of course, they could do that anyway, but this *admits* that they can do that anyway.
The problem is that using ad block can kind of be compared against messing with your electricity or water meter so you aren't billed for as much.
No. It's not messing with my meter; that would indeed be dishonest. It's more like making sure that I turn off all of the lights, and unplug all of the wall-wart transformers, and unplug anything else that I don't absolutely need, in order to avoid *using* extra so that I'm wasting something that I'm billed for.
Yes, we know the sites have ads; but no, we did NOT ask for the ads, and if we can avoid getting the ads, then we will.
You left out the potential "cost of funerals, cost of damage and death in crash area, cost of airframe replacement . . ." An engine failure could be catastrophic. People who don't live in the New York City area may not fully appreciate just how many buildings the "Miracle on the Hudson" plane avoided crashing on when both engines were stopped by bird-strike, not to mention just how much trouble crashing into the George Washington Bridge along the way would have caused (it's the world's busiest motor vehicle bridge).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
Yes, and it ISN'T SOCCER any more.
Your .sig says "I'd rather be free to choose, even if I make the wrong choices." Getting into a gypsy cab in NYC was the last choice some people made, back in the bad old days of the 1990s. Personally, before I put my life in the hands of a cab driver, I'd like to have some idea that the driver is licensed and the cab was inspected at some point. There's a difference between bringing new technology to improve an old market, and doing an end-run around all of the rules."Wouldn't soccer be so much better if people could use their hands?"
Are you suggesting it would be a *better* situation if the phone company and/or post office were inspecting all of your messages? Because I certainly don't want them inspecting mine without due process. And no, the analog/digital divide doesn't matter; I'm sure the Stasi could hire enough people to listen in *all* *day*.
Can you explain why money transmission should be subject to laws that require criminal use of the service to be identified, while information transmission should be exempted from any such requirement?
Can you explain why those money transmission laws have been used to take money away from totally innocent small businesses who happen, by sheer coincidence, to make a few deposits of just-under the "reporting" limit? (Which obviously means that the stated reporting limit is NOT the real reporting limit.) Can you explain, at a more basic level, why it's acceptable for banks to be reporting legal transactions to the government, when it's so much easier for a real crook to deal in cash?
The telephone company provides a service that is widely used for conversations of ALL sorts, from totally innocent to totally evil. Would you suggest having staff eavesdrop on every conversation? The postal service delivers all sorts of mail, from love letters to suspicious white powder; is it the postman's fault if you get a "Dear John" letter?
From the other side: Banks keep money in vaults; jewelry shops are required to take valuables out of window displays and secure them when the shop is closed; so why did Sony have its valuables where anyone could access them? Not blaming the victim here - theft is theft - but, paralleling your example of securing a lorry, there's a big difference between someone breaking into a locked car and hotwiring it, and someone driving away a running car with the keys in and the door actually open outside a coffee shop. (happened in our town.)
You must have met my niece at engineering school. Stay the hell away from her!
Those "dozens of countries" have a different problem. Their girls can't be princesses *or* programmers.
How about a Kickstarter project for a new coloring book, "Her Highness Builds Robots: Princesses for the 21st Century"?
https://www.kickstarter.com/pr...
There are "facts" and there are "beliefs". The difference is important. If you take the position that all "facts" are just "beliefs" or matters of opinion, then science and engineering and technology don't work very well.
... isn't that the usual argument from proponents of surveillance on everybody else?
That said, there IS a problem with privacy, even though this video will technically become a public record. Police see people at their worst and most vulnerable moments, and there's a big difference between "one or two human beings saw me" and "video of me is plastered online". (Note - I'm not talking about criminals, I'm talking about victims, or people in accidents, or medical emergencies.) Access to the video should be limited the same way that crime scene and autopsy photos are limited (or supposed to be) - anyone can look in city hall, but not copy or distribute. OTOOH video being "lost" or "missing" is blatant evidence that someone is hiding something.
Go walk into a biker bar, walk up to the guy with the most tattoos and chains, and insult his mother. Go ahead, exercise your free speech. See what happens.
re: "unpleasantly sharp attacks" - Jon Stewart on The Daily Show points out that people are liars, cheats, and/or morons, and may insult them as well. But he never *threatens* anyone. The difference is pretty clear.
Words are not deeds, but *saying* words *is* a deed. That's why there are concepts like "incitement to riot". Note that "assault" does not mean "harming someone"; it means "threatening to harm someone". (The actual harm is "battery".) Your speech is also restricted in other ways: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States)
Try walking into a bar near a police station and yelling "This is a stickup!"
Are you sure you aren't referencing Bodies: The Exhibition?