What qualifies as an "actionable" post? If I say "I think you are an asshole!", is that actionable? How about if I make the ridiculous claim that "Todd Knarr has sex with farm animals!"?
I complained to my daughter's principle that my daughter's teacher was a racist and wasn't doing her job -- and promptly received a "Cease and Desist" order from the teacher's lawyer accusing my of "Interfering with [the teacher's] business relationships" and "defamation"! Let's face it -- ANY comment made online could be considered actionable! I'm sorry, but I still believe my right to free speech extends to offensive speech, and that readers should be intelligent enough to recognize hyperbole when they see it -- especially in an anonymous post! Or do you think every time some punk in WoW calls me a "faggot", I should be able to turn around and sue him?
Can you say "Line item veto"? I'd consider giving the president this greatly enhanced power to block earmarks in essential legislation, once we take back all of the increased powers that the Bush administration grabbed for itself. In Oregon, we have a law that says a referendum can only address a single issue, otherwise it is invalid. I'd like to see that criteria applied to all bills. Lots of smaller bills that can be voted up and down on their own merits seems far preferable to a single omnibus bill with lots of riders that committee members snuck in when they thought no one was paying attention.
It's not even an accurate copy. For example, if Kindle follows the rules of phonics, then I'm pretty sure it pronounces "Goldilocks and the Three Bears" as "Goldilocks and the Three Beers". As I've mentioned before, I don't believe any reader software can handle heteronyms (e.g. "read" is pronounced two different ways depending on context). Put a book through a text-to-speech converter and then through a speech-to-text converter, and you are virtually guaranteed to have text that differs from the original. How different does it need to be before it is considered a derivative work, and not a copy?
You could also use it as a locking mechanism for group collaboration -- e.g. only the holder of the physical token is allowed to edit a document, so you never need to merge changes. Like I said, there are a lot of things your computer can do if it knows you have possession of a physical object. You just need to open up your mind to the possibilities. I despise Microsoft as much as anyone (doubly so because I've been writing Excel macros lately!) but I have to admit, as a software company, they have designed some good hardware, e.g. the MS Mouse.
Right, as if companies like Xerox and IBM have done any better at turning research into products? Remember that System R* was an IBM research product that they spent millions on, then just sat on the shelf. It wasn't until Larry Ellison took IBM's Relational Database specifications and proved you could make money with it by founding this little database company named Oracle that IBM decided they should get off their ass and come out with DB2. Why should we expect Microsoft to do any better?
Actually, this is useful technology for the next wave in online gaming. You can already buy physical objects that give you access to virtual avatars (e.g. Webkinz). But that is done with an access code attached to the product, which is then non-transferable. The obvious thing to do is to tie objects in virtual space to objects in the real world, then require you to have physical possession of the real world objects in order to use the virtual objects (e.g. to use a high-level sword in WoW, you need to have a plastic sword next to your computer). This allows virtual objects to be traded for real money. While I admit RFID is a cheaper way of doing this, it would be interesting to see which method scales better to support more objects. Also, if you already have a surface computer, the software method is free, whereas few parents are going to buy their kids an RFID reader just so they can spend more money on virtual property. This could also replace logging in on shared computers. I'm sure you can think of other applications for this technology if you try. Like the tabletop computer, it may not be economically feasible to actually make a product out of patent 7,479,960 -- but it is not bullshit.
I concede I was wrong; newer aircraft have been a lot more economically successful than I had thought. I will retreat to the position that the reason that we are still using the 747 is not that it was the pinnacle of aircraft design, but rather that the barriers to creating a replacement for it are very, very high. It is also open to debate the extent to which newer Airbus and Boeing aircraft are truly "clean slate" and to what extent they are using tried-and-true components from earlier designs, but I think your point still stands and an argument for replacing the 747 could be made on purely economic grounds. Why, then, hasn't it been phased out yet?
The 747 may very well be the peak of airplane technology, but for different reasons then you give. Quite simply, the development costs of bringing an entirely new aircraft to market have reached the point where it is no longer economically rewarding to do so. It is much cheaper to continue making incremental improvements to an existing design like the 747 than it is to design an entirely new aircraft from scratch. The technology exists to make a plane with more capacity and greater fuel economy than a 747, but the economic incentives to do that simply are not there. The design of the new Airbus wasn't driven by pure economics, but rather by massive subsidies from the British and French governments; it is still an open question whether huge development costs were actually worth it. Any private company would simply have ordered a 747 instead.
Consumers have voted with their dollars, and apparently they prefer traveling in "cattle class" to traveling on the Concorde. Who are we to criticize the airline industry for giving the customer what they want?
It will be powered by 30,000 guest workers from India an treadmills, and thus will be truly "no CO2"... well, except for the C02 that the guest workers themselves emit, but we're working no that.
A portable with two different CPUs to run two different operating systems?!? I haven't heard of such a forward-thinking and revolutionary idea like this since the Seequa Chameleon And that was 25 years ago!
No, there really aren't many completely new ideas in computing.
Strange as it seems, my wife says she still prefers diamonds to a microprocessor-controlled Valentine's Day card... yeah, I know, I don't understand it either!
A company as big as Microsoft cannot be completely evil. Likewise, a company as big as Google cannot be completely non-evil. MS does play a big role in driving standards, for better or worse. Heck, MS might even be more diligent in getting Silverlight supported on all platforms, whereas I _still_ can't get Flash 8/9 support for my Wii or Android phone. Despite Ballmer's threats to "kill Google", his primary responsibility is to make money for MS shareholders, not to put Google out of business. Besides which, isn't MS planning on abandoning the Zune and getting out of the MP3 player/PDA market anyway? (I wonder if they will still push their OS for cellphones.)
You do realize that encrypting the OS files that came with the computer really doesn't buy you much, don't you? I would think you would want separate data and executable partitions, and only encrypt the data. (Of course, you could put proprietary executables in the data partition.)
How exactly does this "read-to-me" technology handle heteronyms anyway? And if you wanted it read to you, wouldn't you be much better off with an audiobook? And of course, remember that most books and periodicals are free at your local library, so the $369 you spend for the Kindle will never really pay for itself in dead-tree reading material savings. This might be useful to school students that want to avoid carrying 20 pounds of books around, but I just don't see the appeal to the general population.
Before you can obtain a default judgement, the plaintiff must assert that they have used due diligence to inform the defendant that there was an action pending against them. IANAL, but if I came into a case to collect a default judgement and found out that it was possible the defendant was not even aware of the case, I would be a little reluctant to proceed as well, since in that case sanctions against the legal team may be in order. Of course, since I don't have firsthand knowledge of the case, I'm just speculating on what these "inaccuracies" are.
No, you should be able to download anything. If the executable does anything that is OS-specific, then it should do an OS check when it begins executing. Any doofus can use Vista to download to a network drive, then execute it on a non-Vista machine. A download check does nothing to prevent this.
(Yes, I've actually been to Mormon parties, and yes, I'm being sarcastic. I've had great friends who were Mormon, they make absolutely wonderful neighbors and are very dedicated family people. However, their adult "parties" tend to be quiet, depressing affairs where everyone appears to be afraid to have any fun. My daughter also dropped in on a church picnic the local Mormon church was having in the park; despite the emphasis on scripture, she enjoyed the children's activities.)
More true than you think. The Inglewood, CA police department did a check once and discovered at least 3 of their dispatchers had outstanding warrants. (No, they did not admit this publicly, I knew somebody that worked there.) Of course, all those with access to the database can just make those records go away, can't they?
Slashdot Mirror
I complained to my daughter's principle that my daughter's teacher was a racist and wasn't doing her job -- and promptly received a "Cease and Desist" order from the teacher's lawyer accusing my of "Interfering with [the teacher's] business relationships" and "defamation"! Let's face it -- ANY comment made online could be considered actionable! I'm sorry, but I still believe my right to free speech extends to offensive speech, and that readers should be intelligent enough to recognize hyperbole when they see it -- especially in an anonymous post! Or do you think every time some punk in WoW calls me a "faggot", I should be able to turn around and sue him?
Can you say "Line item veto"? I'd consider giving the president this greatly enhanced power to block earmarks in essential legislation, once we take back all of the increased powers that the Bush administration grabbed for itself. In Oregon, we have a law that says a referendum can only address a single issue, otherwise it is invalid. I'd like to see that criteria applied to all bills. Lots of smaller bills that can be voted up and down on their own merits seems far preferable to a single omnibus bill with lots of riders that committee members snuck in when they thought no one was paying attention.
It's not even an accurate copy. For example, if Kindle follows the rules of phonics, then I'm pretty sure it pronounces "Goldilocks and the Three Bears" as "Goldilocks and the Three Beers". As I've mentioned before, I don't believe any reader software can handle heteronyms (e.g. "read" is pronounced two different ways depending on context). Put a book through a text-to-speech converter and then through a speech-to-text converter, and you are virtually guaranteed to have text that differs from the original. How different does it need to be before it is considered a derivative work, and not a copy?
You could also use it as a locking mechanism for group collaboration -- e.g. only the holder of the physical token is allowed to edit a document, so you never need to merge changes. Like I said, there are a lot of things your computer can do if it knows you have possession of a physical object. You just need to open up your mind to the possibilities. I despise Microsoft as much as anyone (doubly so because I've been writing Excel macros lately!) but I have to admit, as a software company, they have designed some good hardware, e.g. the MS Mouse.
Since when has anything Microsoft does needed two reasons?
Right, as if companies like Xerox and IBM have done any better at turning research into products? Remember that System R* was an IBM research product that they spent millions on, then just sat on the shelf. It wasn't until Larry Ellison took IBM's Relational Database specifications and proved you could make money with it by founding this little database company named Oracle that IBM decided they should get off their ass and come out with DB2. Why should we expect Microsoft to do any better?
Actually, this is useful technology for the next wave in online gaming. You can already buy physical objects that give you access to virtual avatars (e.g. Webkinz). But that is done with an access code attached to the product, which is then non-transferable. The obvious thing to do is to tie objects in virtual space to objects in the real world, then require you to have physical possession of the real world objects in order to use the virtual objects (e.g. to use a high-level sword in WoW, you need to have a plastic sword next to your computer). This allows virtual objects to be traded for real money. While I admit RFID is a cheaper way of doing this, it would be interesting to see which method scales better to support more objects. Also, if you already have a surface computer, the software method is free, whereas few parents are going to buy their kids an RFID reader just so they can spend more money on virtual property. This could also replace logging in on shared computers. I'm sure you can think of other applications for this technology if you try. Like the tabletop computer, it may not be economically feasible to actually make a product out of patent 7,479,960 -- but it is not bullshit.
I, for one, think all that money spent on Microsoft Bob and Microsoft Songsmith was money well spent!
I concede I was wrong; newer aircraft have been a lot more economically successful than I had thought. I will retreat to the position that the reason that we are still using the 747 is not that it was the pinnacle of aircraft design, but rather that the barriers to creating a replacement for it are very, very high. It is also open to debate the extent to which newer Airbus and Boeing aircraft are truly "clean slate" and to what extent they are using tried-and-true components from earlier designs, but I think your point still stands and an argument for replacing the 747 could be made on purely economic grounds. Why, then, hasn't it been phased out yet?
Which is exactly my point -- the 747 is successful because of its economics, not because if its technology.
The 747 may very well be the peak of airplane technology, but for different reasons then you give. Quite simply, the development costs of bringing an entirely new aircraft to market have reached the point where it is no longer economically rewarding to do so. It is much cheaper to continue making incremental improvements to an existing design like the 747 than it is to design an entirely new aircraft from scratch. The technology exists to make a plane with more capacity and greater fuel economy than a 747, but the economic incentives to do that simply are not there. The design of the new Airbus wasn't driven by pure economics, but rather by massive subsidies from the British and French governments; it is still an open question whether huge development costs were actually worth it. Any private company would simply have ordered a 747 instead.
Consumers have voted with their dollars, and apparently they prefer traveling in "cattle class" to traveling on the Concorde. Who are we to criticize the airline industry for giving the customer what they want?
As a big plus, hacking the automated navigation on these will also revolutionize the kidnapping industry!
It will be powered by 30,000 guest workers from India an treadmills, and thus will be truly "no CO2"... well, except for the C02 that the guest workers themselves emit, but we're working no that.
No, there really aren't many completely new ideas in computing.
I think you are confusing "public art" and "pubic art".
Strange as it seems, my wife says she still prefers diamonds to a microprocessor-controlled Valentine's Day card... yeah, I know, I don't understand it either!
A company as big as Microsoft cannot be completely evil. Likewise, a company as big as Google cannot be completely non-evil. MS does play a big role in driving standards, for better or worse. Heck, MS might even be more diligent in getting Silverlight supported on all platforms, whereas I _still_ can't get Flash 8/9 support for my Wii or Android phone. Despite Ballmer's threats to "kill Google", his primary responsibility is to make money for MS shareholders, not to put Google out of business. Besides which, isn't MS planning on abandoning the Zune and getting out of the MP3 player/PDA market anyway? (I wonder if they will still push their OS for cellphones.)
You do realize that encrypting the OS files that came with the computer really doesn't buy you much, don't you? I would think you would want separate data and executable partitions, and only encrypt the data. (Of course, you could put proprietary executables in the data partition.)
How exactly does this "read-to-me" technology handle heteronyms anyway? And if you wanted it read to you, wouldn't you be much better off with an audiobook? And of course, remember that most books and periodicals are free at your local library, so the $369 you spend for the Kindle will never really pay for itself in dead-tree reading material savings. This might be useful to school students that want to avoid carrying 20 pounds of books around, but I just don't see the appeal to the general population.
Before you can obtain a default judgement, the plaintiff must assert that they have used due diligence to inform the defendant that there was an action pending against them. IANAL, but if I came into a case to collect a default judgement and found out that it was possible the defendant was not even aware of the case, I would be a little reluctant to proceed as well, since in that case sanctions against the legal team may be in order. Of course, since I don't have firsthand knowledge of the case, I'm just speculating on what these "inaccuracies" are.
Ex-Microsoft chief deliberately releases bugs into the wild!
No, you should be able to download anything. If the executable does anything that is OS-specific, then it should do an OS check when it begins executing. Any doofus can use Vista to download to a network drive, then execute it on a non-Vista machine. A download check does nothing to prevent this.
(Yes, I've actually been to Mormon parties, and yes, I'm being sarcastic. I've had great friends who were Mormon, they make absolutely wonderful neighbors and are very dedicated family people. However, their adult "parties" tend to be quiet, depressing affairs where everyone appears to be afraid to have any fun. My daughter also dropped in on a church picnic the local Mormon church was having in the park; despite the emphasis on scripture, she enjoyed the children's activities.)
More true than you think. The Inglewood, CA police department did a check once and discovered at least 3 of their dispatchers had outstanding warrants. (No, they did not admit this publicly, I knew somebody that worked there.) Of course, all those with access to the database can just make those records go away, can't they?