I agree with this. It's all very well allowing the general public to retain the "9 planets" idea that's been around for a few generations, but how do you explain to schoolkids that there are 9 planets, but also other similar objects that are in some cases even larger than the smallest planet but which aren't really planets? How does it make astronomers look?
All words are arbitrary, so what? If you want to be able to communicate then you'd better use them the same way as the person you are communicating with, including up-to-date obscenity as appropriate.
The article basically says that people tend to curse when they are comfortable with the people around them. Thus lack of cursing may indicate discomfort with the people around you, or restraint, and perhaps other people would interpret it this way even if not intended.
But it would be just a habit, in any case, and habits can be changed.
Alternatively you just need a non-reflective coating for the lens, and it only needs to reduce the reflectivity to the typical value of eye glasses (assuming it's true that it was already more reflective).
This system, as I understand it, involves an IR receiver in the camera to receive the disabling signal. It's hard to see this working effectively since
a) it would probably be easy to disable the IR sensor with a low-tech method such as masking tape
b) paparazzi would have no problems getting hold of cameras that didn't support this technology, e.g., old cameras, imported cameras, film cameras etc.
c) camera makers would have no incentive to implement it, and especially not in a way that couldn't be easily disabled.
It sounds like it shouldn't be too hard to defend yourself in court. There are countless defenses that could be used, such as "the plaintiffs are making it all up just to make money out of me" or "my computer must have been hacked and somebody else did it", or "I never distributed any files, I just downloaded a few for personal purposes. Somebody else must have copied them from my computer without my permission".
A licence alone is just permission to do something, and such permission is not necessarily irrevokable. If it was part of a contract it may be harder to revoke however, depending on the terms.
Copyright law is hardly very clear on how works can be put in the public domain. I've read some of the legislation for a few countries and I have yet to find one that even mentions the concept. In the absence of such clarity, heirs to the copyright can potentially revoke all previous licences, unless perhaps they explicitly state that they are irrevokable.
You can approach this the same way as you would any other business investment. What return do you get if you spend $xxxx per year, vs $xxxxx per year? Given the short lifespans of typical business technology, it had better pay its way quickly.
There's no way you can set an arbitrary percentage of turnover or employee numbers and expect to get anything more than an arbitrary conclusion.
I don't think it makes much difference whether it's done with this idea in mind or not. The endless stream of such patents and related lawsuits must eventually cause the system to collapse under its own insanity.
Yes, Christianity has its doctrines, just like any other religion. But the question is whether the USA is a viable competitor in the world religion market.
To me it seems that the USA is a net consumer of religion, not a major producer. It's citizens may go on a Hajj to experience genuine medieval-style religion, or they may visit Europe to visit the great cathedrals (now museums) that were the product of medieval religion.
But for what reason would a pilgrim visit the USA, the land of shopping malls, even in the unlikely event that they can get entrance to the country without being treated as a potential terrorist? It's the pilgrims that bring in the real money in religion.
I think the USA will have to come up with a better idea than religion to save itself.
I wasn't sure exactly what "brittleness" should mean when applied to software, but according to this article it's a practically unavoidable attribute for any large software system.
In your scenario, these "doomed" users are only a few percent, and not all of them would install Firefox. So it's share wouldn't increase much.
The problem for Firefox is that it's existing Windows users will buy a new computer some day, with IE 7.0 installed. Will this version still be so bad that they are motivated to install Firefox again?
This is the advantage that Microsoft always has, and what allowed them to defeat Netscape. The browser only has to be "good enough" and indifference of the users will work for them.
This is the sort of thing you would actually want to test in a new version of Internet Explorer, in case they fixed the bug in CSS parsing that made the hack work (if such is a bug), or in case they fixed the original CSS problems that you were trying to work around.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with this. It's all very well allowing the general public to retain the "9 planets" idea that's been around for a few generations, but how do you explain to schoolkids that there are 9 planets, but also other similar objects that are in some cases even larger than the smallest planet but which aren't really planets? How does it make astronomers look?
What if a planet was ejected from its star, so that it was travelling through the galaxy independently. What would it be called now?
Criminal actions, for example.
Yeah, it's basic statistics. For every bomber there are probably 100,000 people who would sometimes act as "suspiciously" as the guy in the article.
All words are arbitrary, so what? If you want to be able to communicate then you'd better use them the same way as the person you are communicating with, including up-to-date obscenity as appropriate.
But it would be just a habit, in any case, and habits can be changed.
Alternatively you just need a non-reflective coating for the lens, and it only needs to reduce the reflectivity to the typical value of eye glasses (assuming it's true that it was already more reflective).
This system, as I understand it, involves an IR receiver in the camera to receive the disabling signal. It's hard to see this working effectively since
a) it would probably be easy to disable the IR sensor with a low-tech method such as masking tape
b) paparazzi would have no problems getting hold of cameras that didn't support this technology, e.g., old cameras, imported cameras, film cameras etc.
c) camera makers would have no incentive to implement it, and especially not in a way that couldn't be easily disabled.
Why should I pay to help you choose your astronaut, and what makes you think I know anything about astronauts in any case?
Maybe I'd just choose the politician I liked the least, or a lawyer.
Now there's a thought. Maybe I'll pay after all, but on the condition it's a one-way ticket.
It sounds like it shouldn't be too hard to defend yourself in court. There are countless defenses that could be used, such as "the plaintiffs are making it all up just to make money out of me" or "my computer must have been hacked and somebody else did it", or "I never distributed any files, I just downloaded a few for personal purposes. Somebody else must have copied them from my computer without my permission".
A licence alone is just permission to do something, and such permission is not necessarily irrevokable. If it was part of a contract it may be harder to revoke however, depending on the terms.
Copyright law is hardly very clear on how works can be put in the public domain. I've read some of the legislation for a few countries and I have yet to find one that even mentions the concept. In the absence of such clarity, heirs to the copyright can potentially revoke all previous licences, unless perhaps they explicitly state that they are irrevokable.
There's no way you can set an arbitrary percentage of turnover or employee numbers and expect to get anything more than an arbitrary conclusion.
Yes there is a place for open source developers, writing libraries that can be pulled into Windows, or writing add-ons for Microsoft Word.
They will never accept Linux if it means losing a sale.
Sure, but wouldn't necessarily a bad thing.
I don't think it makes much difference whether it's done with this idea in mind or not. The endless stream of such patents and related lawsuits must eventually cause the system to collapse under its own insanity.
Check whether there's an option on the account to change you email, surname, address etc., and if so reset to fictitous values.
To me it seems that the USA is a net consumer of religion, not a major producer. It's citizens may go on a Hajj to experience genuine medieval-style religion, or they may visit Europe to visit the great cathedrals (now museums) that were the product of medieval religion.
But for what reason would a pilgrim visit the USA, the land of shopping malls, even in the unlikely event that they can get entrance to the country without being treated as a potential terrorist? It's the pilgrims that bring in the real money in religion.
I think the USA will have to come up with a better idea than religion to save itself.
No, in that sector you are outplayed by any number of countries in the Middle East.
I wasn't sure exactly what "brittleness" should mean when applied to software, but according to this article it's a practically unavoidable attribute for any large software system.
Better: keep everything in UTC. Don't trust time keeping systems controlled by politicians.
The problem for Firefox is that it's existing Windows users will buy a new computer some day, with IE 7.0 installed. Will this version still be so bad that they are motivated to install Firefox again?
This is the advantage that Microsoft always has, and what allowed them to defeat Netscape. The browser only has to be "good enough" and indifference of the users will work for them.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050511 Firefox/1.0.4 (compatible; MSIE 7.0)
Good luck to anybody still trying to use the UA string.
M$ has always had a problem with UA strings. They have been faking the Mozilla string for how many years now?
Or, equally likely, introduced new CSS problems.