Disregard my rant. I didn't RTFA. The report is available in searchable, highlightable PDF right on the page. PDF isn't the perfect option but on my comp it is only one command away from plaintext.
I have worked on page turner style flash projects before. They were requested and I built them. The recipients loved them.
And the reason they loved them is very simple. They didn't get computers and they couldn't figure out how to make other people get computers. They would never trust someone with experience in the field because these were PR people that know everything they need to know about everything.
The page turner looked like a magazine or newspaper to them. That meant they could understand it. They didn't think about things like linking or accessing them from a plethora of devices because they didn't have to do that with the printed materials they will hold onto til their last breath. It fit their limited notion of how information could be presented to audiences.
I am not saying that is what happened here. But, if there was a PR firm involved, my first guess would be they are the main reason this happened.
Considering how few games for the PS3 are currently 1080p, it seems unlikely there will be anything other than small puzzle games that are actually 1080p to each player through this television.
My point is more along the lines of: if coffee intake is a side effect of some other behavior that highly reduces the chances of cancer, drinking coffee alone could later be found to increase your chances of getting prostate cancer. That could be the case.
So, what was your point in responding to me originally? I was annoyed that the summary tried to paint a causal relationship between coffee and cancer when all there is is correlation right now, and then your response was it doesn't matter why there was a correlation, only that there was less cancer.
But that's dumb. It does matter why. You cannot take this article to mean drinking coffee will reduce your risk of cancer. You have to take it as men that do happen to drink more coffee are statistically less likely to get cancer. We need to figure out why in case there is a potential cancer treatment lurking somewhere in that correlation between the two.
But if you jump straight to a causal relationship you could end up doing more harm than good. Wasn't there a medicine that correlated with a lower risk of heart disease in a large study that, upon closer study, turned out to increase risk of that heart disease?
That's why I thought you were being sarcastic. Your response is so counter productive I actually thought you were making a joke that I missed since you are essentially arguing that correlation is enough and we shouldn't look for the actual cause. If that's not what you intended to say, then you worded your response poorly.
The number of potential reasons for the correlation is staggering. Think of the other things that could be different in the lifestyle and diet of someone that drinks 6 cups of coffee a day versus someone that drinks 1?
It's painful everytime a horrible summary like this makes it through.
Would they need to do that? In the US at least, if I take a picture of a random person on the street, the picture is mine. I can sell it to whomever I want without getting the subject's consent. If I don't get their consent and the picture ends up in an ad campaign, I'm sure they could sue for some money, but Nintendo has the lawyers to fight those battles.
And that's assuming the subject isn't underaged. I'm pretty sure in that case you would need the parent's permission.
But even then, the person that agrees to the TOS is responsible for anything done with it. Nintendo probably assumes an adult will be agreeing to the TOS. So I guess if a picture of an underaged person was used in an ad campaign, the adult that agreed to the TOS would be the one to get sued, not Nintendo, since that adult is the one that took the picture knowing Nintendo could use it that way.
Watch for the TV series about this: The Richard Stallman Chronicles. It's about an open source champion that uses a USPTO SAAS Server that's been captured and reprogrammed to compile GPLv3 compliant software in order to stop the coming Patentocalypse.
Your response isn't clear. Are you saying that listing those projects constitutes some sort of nefarious marketing that they should be getting taxed for? Or are you suggesting the corporation doesn't make Firefox and other programs?
What marketing does the Foundation do for the Corporation? Keep in mind what the corporation is. It is the arm that produces and markets Firefox and the other software. Firefox.com is operated by the Corporation. All of the marketing I've seen regarding any of the pieces of software the corporation produces has been from the corporation as far as I have been able to tell.
The Foundation focuses on the overarching mission. And it does so with a relatively small team. I believe there are fewer than 20 employees of Mozilla Foundation. There is a board of directors that cannot benefit financially from their position with it (well they can but they then have to pay an excise tax I think). The rest of Mozilla is for-profit. And it has to pay taxes like any other corporation. Last I checked, the staff of the foundation are split pretty evenly between maintainers of the Mozilla Foundation website, standard non-profit fundraising positions, and managers of the Drumbeat program.
There is no pretence. Mozilla Foundation is a non-profit organization. It owns Mozilla Corporation, which is a for-profit corporation.
It is not unusual for non-profits to own for-profits. The important thing is that the money that goes to the for-profit goes towards fundraising for the non-profit and/or working towards the underlying goals of the non-profit.
If you look at the stated goals of the Mozilla Foundation, Mozilla Corp is clearly working towards them.
As part of that dragnet, U.S. marshals accompanied employees of Microsoft's digital crimes unit into Internet hosting facilities in Kansas City, Mo.; Scranton, Pa; Denver; Dallas; Chicago; Seattle and Columbus, Ohio. The Microsoft officials brought with them a federal court order granting them permission to seize computers within the facilities alleged to be "command-and-control" machines, through which the operators of the Rustock botnet broadcast instructions to their army of infected computers, estimated by Microsoft at more than one million machines world-wide.
I think he mentions one reason is that you can't upgrade from ME to XP. So to continue the upgrade path, going through 2K is the best option. And it is a valid one since, even though it was marketed more for business, there always seemed to be a lot of 2K machines browsing the decidedly non-business related websites I've managed.
I remember there was another one that he didn't have an upgrade copy of. Maybe 98SE? But he was able to fudge an install version into an upgrade, which I've seen fairly straightforward instructions on in the past. I don't think fudging a path from ME to XP would have been quite as simple.
I don't own a PS3. Are people shown the terms of service when they connect to PSN? That's where the ground rules will be set saying you can't use a hacked console. So if they ban someone from PSN for having a hacked console they aren't "discriminating" they are removing people that violated the rules that those people agreed to follow.
Slashdot Mirror
Disregard my rant. I didn't RTFA. The report is available in searchable, highlightable PDF right on the page. PDF isn't the perfect option but on my comp it is only one command away from plaintext.
I have worked on page turner style flash projects before. They were requested and I built them. The recipients loved them.
And the reason they loved them is very simple. They didn't get computers and they couldn't figure out how to make other people get computers. They would never trust someone with experience in the field because these were PR people that know everything they need to know about everything.
The page turner looked like a magazine or newspaper to them. That meant they could understand it. They didn't think about things like linking or accessing them from a plethora of devices because they didn't have to do that with the printed materials they will hold onto til their last breath. It fit their limited notion of how information could be presented to audiences.
I am not saying that is what happened here. But, if there was a PR firm involved, my first guess would be they are the main reason this happened.
There was a story a couple months ago saying the browser would be based on NetFront. That's what the PS3 and PSP browsers are based on.
Considering how few games for the PS3 are currently 1080p, it seems unlikely there will be anything other than small puzzle games that are actually 1080p to each player through this television.
For the subscribers, there wasn't really a huge suffering because of the outage and they were given free games.
The developers are probably pissed. I recall someone from Capcom claimed they were losing millions because of the outage.
I thought the free games they gave out were the compensation for the outage.
Why did you stop using it for Netflix? Some sort of protest?
It does seem safe to assume that the .NET framework will be available on ARM as well since it's present in at least some form on Phone 7 and Xbox 360.
I don't know how much valuable content that actually adds to the the Win8 ARM platform, but it's something.
My point is more along the lines of: if coffee intake is a side effect of some other behavior that highly reduces the chances of cancer, drinking coffee alone could later be found to increase your chances of getting prostate cancer. That could be the case.
So, what was your point in responding to me originally? I was annoyed that the summary tried to paint a causal relationship between coffee and cancer when all there is is correlation right now, and then your response was it doesn't matter why there was a correlation, only that there was less cancer.
But that's dumb. It does matter why. You cannot take this article to mean drinking coffee will reduce your risk of cancer. You have to take it as men that do happen to drink more coffee are statistically less likely to get cancer. We need to figure out why in case there is a potential cancer treatment lurking somewhere in that correlation between the two.
But if you jump straight to a causal relationship you could end up doing more harm than good. Wasn't there a medicine that correlated with a lower risk of heart disease in a large study that, upon closer study, turned out to increase risk of that heart disease?
That's why I thought you were being sarcastic. Your response is so counter productive I actually thought you were making a joke that I missed since you are essentially arguing that correlation is enough and we shouldn't look for the actual cause. If that's not what you intended to say, then you worded your response poorly.
Is my sarcasm detector busted, or did that make no sense whatsoever?
The number of potential reasons for the correlation is staggering. Think of the other things that could be different in the lifestyle and diet of someone that drinks 6 cups of coffee a day versus someone that drinks 1?
It's painful everytime a horrible summary like this makes it through.
Would they need to do that? In the US at least, if I take a picture of a random person on the street, the picture is mine. I can sell it to whomever I want without getting the subject's consent. If I don't get their consent and the picture ends up in an ad campaign, I'm sure they could sue for some money, but Nintendo has the lawyers to fight those battles.
And that's assuming the subject isn't underaged. I'm pretty sure in that case you would need the parent's permission.
But even then, the person that agrees to the TOS is responsible for anything done with it. Nintendo probably assumes an adult will be agreeing to the TOS. So I guess if a picture of an underaged person was used in an ad campaign, the adult that agreed to the TOS would be the one to get sued, not Nintendo, since that adult is the one that took the picture knowing Nintendo could use it that way.
Exactly his point. No one person can understand ALL the code for an x86 emulator. It takes teams of guys. TEAMS.
I am not an iPhone user. What does he mean by this? Are folders something new?
Watch for the TV series about this: The Richard Stallman Chronicles. It's about an open source champion that uses a USPTO SAAS Server that's been captured and reprogrammed to compile GPLv3 compliant software in order to stop the coming Patentocalypse.
Your response isn't clear. Are you saying that listing those projects constitutes some sort of nefarious marketing that they should be getting taxed for? Or are you suggesting the corporation doesn't make Firefox and other programs?
What marketing does the Foundation do for the Corporation? Keep in mind what the corporation is. It is the arm that produces and markets Firefox and the other software. Firefox.com is operated by the Corporation. All of the marketing I've seen regarding any of the pieces of software the corporation produces has been from the corporation as far as I have been able to tell.
The Foundation focuses on the overarching mission. And it does so with a relatively small team. I believe there are fewer than 20 employees of Mozilla Foundation. There is a board of directors that cannot benefit financially from their position with it (well they can but they then have to pay an excise tax I think). The rest of Mozilla is for-profit. And it has to pay taxes like any other corporation. Last I checked, the staff of the foundation are split pretty evenly between maintainers of the Mozilla Foundation website, standard non-profit fundraising positions, and managers of the Drumbeat program.
There is no pretence. Mozilla Foundation is a non-profit organization. It owns Mozilla Corporation, which is a for-profit corporation.
It is not unusual for non-profits to own for-profits. The important thing is that the money that goes to the for-profit goes towards fundraising for the non-profit and/or working towards the underlying goals of the non-profit.
If you look at the stated goals of the Mozilla Foundation, Mozilla Corp is clearly working towards them.
The fact that you can't possibly disprove it is why it isn't scientific.
I think he mentions one reason is that you can't upgrade from ME to XP. So to continue the upgrade path, going through 2K is the best option. And it is a valid one since, even though it was marketed more for business, there always seemed to be a lot of 2K machines browsing the decidedly non-business related websites I've managed.
I remember there was another one that he didn't have an upgrade copy of. Maybe 98SE? But he was able to fudge an install version into an upgrade, which I've seen fairly straightforward instructions on in the past. I don't think fudging a path from ME to XP would have been quite as simple.
I don't own a PS3. Are people shown the terms of service when they connect to PSN? That's where the ground rules will be set saying you can't use a hacked console. So if they ban someone from PSN for having a hacked console they aren't "discriminating" they are removing people that violated the rules that those people agreed to follow.
Hopefully this is a first step towards FINALLY getting my chairdog.
You should submit this info to the makers of Dan's Guardian so they can fix their software to handle all properly formed URLs.