He's referring to the "flattened world" in the sense that Friedman uses it in his book, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_is_Flat. To oversimplify, he says that the world's economic markets have become unprecedentedly more even (more of a level playing field) in the Internet age. Even outside of economics, more people from all parts of the world interact now with significantly less barriers to entry.
Ah, but since the cracking device itself is made by Microsoft, it's not likely to work most of the time anyway. Just MS doing their own part to safeguarding our liberties.
The real threat to Office is Office 2000, which still is more than the great majority of companies need.
I work at an engineering company, and we even use Excel's programming functions regularly for project management. But we'll never upgrade to 2007. No need. Microsoft's empire was built on growth, and Office, just like XP, got to a good enough stage many years ago. They still have some opportunity in the developing world, that hasn't already bought the software, but they're built out here.
I disagree. I think widespread usage of Linux is significantly to Apple's advantage. Any market-share taken from Microsoft means less applications will be Windows or IE only. That makes people who are bound to certain applications more likely to feel able to switch. Also, while many/.ers are often torn between OSX and Linux, it's really a quite different market. Apple's drivers and general hardware compatibility will always, I think, be superior to Linux's. That's what they've specialized on from the beginning. Using OSX and Apple computers is easy. If you have any problems, their support center is excellent--and even available in person. I don't see Shuttleworth (or anyone else) investing in that for Linux. The more MS's monopoly is lessened, the greater this difference will be.
But guess what? This is exactly how it should work. If the content creator cannot be located by a google search or contacting the listed publisher (and 99% of judges won't allow "reasonable effort" without these), then the meta-creators shouldn't be burdened. If the original creator then shows up, he gets some money out of the deal--more than he would have gotten in the current system, while meta-creators aren't really able to use orphaned works for fear of multi-million lawsuits down the road. I understand criticisms of this act in terms of it being a small patch that doesn't go far enough and lets us hang on to our wholly broken system longer. I guess I just don't understand your criticism. Who cares if big media is the meta-creator?
He didn't say sales were cratering; he said growth was. (d~sales/dt) Growth potential is one of the more important stats to investors, so it gets tossed around more than sales.
Let me be more specific. I think that the great majority of the time wherein investigators have requested warrants for phone records, the results they received were used more for crime detection and prosecution than political/personal non-crime reasons. I don't have any data to back up this claim, but I haven't even heard the most rabid conspiracy theorists claiming otherwise. If you had reasons to think otherwise I would honestly very much like to know them.
Forced detention is also a crime against man. But it can be used to prevent greater crimes. [If used responsibly with rehabilitation as a primary goal, etc.] I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the access to phone records by police agencies has done more good than harm over the last 40 years. IP information is certainly of the same type.
That said, I don't think this proposal is prudent. Our major law enforcement agencies have not shown themselves to be trustworthy of late, and our congress does not seem to have the will to stop their abuse. Therefore the only rational choice would be to deny this proposal, as it is at the time being likely to do more harm than good.
Not that I agree with the proposal, but it doesn't relate to the 6th Amendment particularly. The FBI wants the ability to get a warrant for the information if they find they may need it, up to 2 years later. ISPs would imply alter where they put these numbers to permanent storage (if they don't already; they very well may).
The significant dangers of this proposal come from the FBI (and others) not abiding by constitutional protections. The fact that this proposal would make it easier for them to do bad things doesn't change the inherent constitutionality of the proposal.
Indeed. I think the unstated addendum to the Prime Directive is that No pre-warp civilization should be affected by a warp-age civilization. We're still a bit away from having to worry about that.
Unless Stephen has another announcement he's saving for another date...
Does somebody want to update that Anti-anti-spam form letter doohickey for P2P grievers? I'm not quite savvy enough with internet & P2P protocol to not screw it up (I'm on here for being a MechE, give me a break). This could be done very well and perhaps show some of these otherwise smart people how useless and/or destructive this kind of legislation would be.
But for all of its inevitable future woes, Blockbuster remains the movie industry's top consumer (they need a LOT more stock than Netflix). That gives them a good bit of leverage in discussions with studios. Also, I'm betting studios would like to give Blockbuster a hand up so they don't just deal with Netflix 10 years from now.
If you picked the car the first time (1/3rd chance), and then you switch you lose.
If you picked a goat the first time (2/3 chance), then you switch, you win, because you can only the car is left.
If you pick car first (1/3) and don't switch, you win.
If you pick goat first (2/3) and don't switch, you lose.
Better yet, imagine that there was 2,001 doors, one car and 2,000 goats, and then when you picked a door 1,999 other goats were revealed. Now you know almost for certain that you picked a goat, so you switch to the other remaining door. The Monty Hall problem doesn't give you those odds, but they make it a bit clearer for me.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you.
Road maintenance issues will continue to be less significant than oil supply maintenance issues for a while longer, I believe.
I'm no expert in this field, but this sounds to me like computers in isolated areas would suddenly get the shaft. Am I missing something?
He's referring to the "flattened world" in the sense that Friedman uses it in his book, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_is_Flat. To oversimplify, he says that the world's economic markets have become unprecedentedly more even (more of a level playing field) in the Internet age. Even outside of economics, more people from all parts of the world interact now with significantly less barriers to entry.
Ah, but since the cracking device itself is made by Microsoft, it's not likely to work most of the time anyway. Just MS doing their own part to safeguarding our liberties.
The real threat to Office is Office 2000, which still is more than the great majority of companies need.
I work at an engineering company, and we even use Excel's programming functions regularly for project management. But we'll never upgrade to 2007. No need. Microsoft's empire was built on growth, and Office, just like XP, got to a good enough stage many years ago. They still have some opportunity in the developing world, that hasn't already bought the software, but they're built out here.
Typical for such a leftist organization.
Apple should be equally frightened.
/.ers are often torn between OSX and Linux, it's really a quite different market. Apple's drivers and general hardware compatibility will always, I think, be superior to Linux's. That's what they've specialized on from the beginning. Using OSX and Apple computers is easy. If you have any problems, their support center is excellent--and even available in person. I don't see Shuttleworth (or anyone else) investing in that for Linux. The more MS's monopoly is lessened, the greater this difference will be.
I disagree. I think widespread usage of Linux is significantly to Apple's advantage. Any market-share taken from Microsoft means less applications will be Windows or IE only. That makes people who are bound to certain applications more likely to feel able to switch. Also, while many
But guess what? This is exactly how it should work. If the content creator cannot be located by a google search or contacting the listed publisher (and 99% of judges won't allow "reasonable effort" without these), then the meta-creators shouldn't be burdened. If the original creator then shows up, he gets some money out of the deal--more than he would have gotten in the current system, while meta-creators aren't really able to use orphaned works for fear of multi-million lawsuits down the road. I understand criticisms of this act in terms of it being a small patch that doesn't go far enough and lets us hang on to our wholly broken system longer. I guess I just don't understand your criticism. Who cares if big media is the meta-creator?
Unless you use a LOT of topspin. On every shot. But better than that? A roof. And you still only allow 1 bounce.
He didn't say sales were cratering; he said growth was. (d~sales/dt) Growth potential is one of the more important stats to investors, so it gets tossed around more than sales.
But isn't that exactly what Mark Shuttleworth is doing with Ubuntu? Rich guy funding the development of software that is free to all?
Let me be more specific. I think that the great majority of the time wherein investigators have requested warrants for phone records, the results they received were used more for crime detection and prosecution than political/personal non-crime reasons. I don't have any data to back up this claim, but I haven't even heard the most rabid conspiracy theorists claiming otherwise. If you had reasons to think otherwise I would honestly very much like to know them.
Forced detention is also a crime against man. But it can be used to prevent greater crimes. [If used responsibly with rehabilitation as a primary goal, etc.] I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the access to phone records by police agencies has done more good than harm over the last 40 years. IP information is certainly of the same type.
That said, I don't think this proposal is prudent. Our major law enforcement agencies have not shown themselves to be trustworthy of late, and our congress does not seem to have the will to stop their abuse. Therefore the only rational choice would be to deny this proposal, as it is at the time being likely to do more harm than good.
Not that I agree with the proposal, but it doesn't relate to the 6th Amendment particularly. The FBI wants the ability to get a warrant for the information if they find they may need it, up to 2 years later. ISPs would imply alter where they put these numbers to permanent storage (if they don't already; they very well may).
The significant dangers of this proposal come from the FBI (and others) not abiding by constitutional protections. The fact that this proposal would make it easier for them to do bad things doesn't change the inherent constitutionality of the proposal.
Wait, I'm confused. Is this a good or a bad thing?
Precisely. And besides, if you make a print copy, you can put the words "DON'T PANIC" on the cover in large, friendly letters.
Indeed. I think the unstated addendum to the Prime Directive is that No pre-warp civilization should be affected by a warp-age civilization. We're still a bit away from having to worry about that.
Unless Stephen has another announcement he's saving for another date...
That's in the same units as Spaceballs' ridiculous and ludicrous speeds.
I had no idea this happened. Thanks!
Speaking of which, does anybody know of anything I can do to get rid of or minimize how much I have to see Nvidia's control panel?
Does somebody want to update that Anti-anti-spam form letter doohickey for P2P grievers? I'm not quite savvy enough with internet & P2P protocol to not screw it up (I'm on here for being a MechE, give me a break). This could be done very well and perhaps show some of these otherwise smart people how useless and/or destructive this kind of legislation would be.
Thanks.
"Mom, I need more brothers..."
But for all of its inevitable future woes, Blockbuster remains the movie industry's top consumer (they need a LOT more stock than Netflix). That gives them a good bit of leverage in discussions with studios. Also, I'm betting studios would like to give Blockbuster a hand up so they don't just deal with Netflix 10 years from now.
If you picked the car the first time (1/3rd chance), and then you switch you lose. If you picked a goat the first time (2/3 chance), then you switch, you win, because you can only the car is left.
If you pick car first (1/3) and don't switch, you win. If you pick goat first (2/3) and don't switch, you lose.
Better yet, imagine that there was 2,001 doors, one car and 2,000 goats, and then when you picked a door 1,999 other goats were revealed. Now you know almost for certain that you picked a goat, so you switch to the other remaining door. The Monty Hall problem doesn't give you those odds, but they make it a bit clearer for me.