Honestly, if I'm eliminated as a candidate because of information I've freely disclosed to the world (such as my taste in music), then I don't want to work there.
If I understand correctly, the slowness has to do more with XML than with text vs. binary. GP mentioned it, but then provided this link which is probably less relevant to the issue...
VOIP has been getting a free ride since they can connect with the landline but have avoided the fee
How do they connect with the land line? By some magic? No - they are basically subscribers to a PSTN network and paid its operator for their subscription. Obviously PSTN operator's charges are calculated to cover all its expenses, including this fee. Therefore everything is already paid, albeit indirectly! FCC wants more money.
I know everyone hates taxes, but really Vonage and the rest were using a loophole to not pay the taxes.
I doubt that. Basically I see the VoIP operators offering such services as PSTN subscribers, because VoIP to PSTN transition must happen on some node of the PSTN network and obviously based on an agreement with the PSTN operator. Therefore all taxes relative to this physical node have already been paid! FCC is just greedy here.
Imagine you installed a VoIP-to-PSTN device at your home so that all calls you're making from your possibly multiple VoIP devices appear as a regular calls via land line (in this simplest case only one call at a time will be possible). Will it be reasonable to tax you in this situation? Where are the taxes unpaid?
The article said that the students have to sign training rules before they can participate in extra-curriculars. This is a contract between the student and school.
So apparently minors can't have all freedoms and anticipate consequences of their actions, and yet contracts signed by them are enforceable?
* Lack of properly implemented comment function (called Notes in Writer). This is essential for teamwork.
* Inconsistent visual model of paragraphs, which doesn't separate them properly as objects from each other. This is most clearly demonstrated on indented paras. To select a para with its associated formatting (which I need to do very often), you have to also select the indent of the following para! This is completely illogical, and you have to fine-tune your movement in order not to select text from second para by mistake. The quadruple-click method they suggest only selects the text content of the para.
* Manual breaks aren't shown as formatting characters. They are shown only in Print Layout mode and only when text margin are displayed. My main working mode, however, would be Web Layout, which allows me to concentrate on content, not formatting, and have continuous flow of text of arbitrary zoom wrapped to the window.
* Macro Recorder spews out something incomprehensive. VBA is much more readable.
* There's no quick and easy way to assign a key to a style or a symbol, besides recording a macro. This feature is a huge timesaver.
* An awkward system if dealing with bulleted and numbered lists with 2 levels of styles. This could be handy in principle, but needs to be unfucked up. Besides, I even can't visually set the indent of the para text from a bullet or number - have to enter a number into a text box. Still more, bullets and numbers tend to get screwed on round-trips between Writer and Word.
I think the list is not complete, but this is what has come to my mind so far and all those are pretty seriuos issues for me as a professional translator. That said, OOo is handy to have as an addition to MS Office - recently it saved me a couple of hunderds of pages screwed by Word 2000.
people are asked for their papers and arrested if they don't have them or they are suspected to be fake.
Well that practice is pretty common here in Russia. They cannot arrest you justr because you don't have an ID with you, but they can in principle detain you for 3 days "to ascertain your identity", if they so choose. Quite a few policemen extort money that way because of ridiculously low wages.
Actually, it's the very increase that is important here. Look, these 0,000...1% risk figures are given for an average person - your personal risk for getting brain tumour may very well be, say, 20% (God forbid). And if this is the case, you'd certainly want to know what can increase your risk.
Why "she"? Seriously, if you want to be politically correct, why do you replace one sexist form with another? "They" does sound stupid, but using it would be less absurd anyway.
The same applies to fonts. To get fonts looking remotely acceptable in Linux, enable Apple's patented method of rending fonts, and copy over Microsoft's fonts. Then fonts in Linux rock!
Well at least for sans-serif fonts it's not the case for a long time already:
You would argue that it is the MEDIUM that is the product.
It's not "productness" that matters, it's "physicality".
Theft is not naturally bad because you deprive someone of the thing you've stolen. It's bad because you have stolen the VALUE of that thing from them. Walmart isn't upset with you for stealing a shirt because they miss the shirt. They miss the VALUE of that shirt that they should have gotten for you to have that shirt.
Wrong. The value they miss is related only to the PHYSICAL PRESENCE of this shirt, which is a) the cost of reproducing it, and b) the missed opportunity to sell THIS SPECIFIC shirt to SOMEBODY ELSE who would be SURE TO BUY it but didn't because the shirt was absent. See all these constraints in caps? Everything beyond is just speculation - they are NOT guaranteed to sell it to a specific person or sell it at all. Which leads us to the following point.
I was waiting for the "possibly lost sale". This arguement also holds no water. It is true that many people who pirate things can't afford to buy what they pirated, and thus if they could not pirate, they would not have bought it anyway. But this is not the scenario we are talking about!
Why not? This is, IN PARTICULAR, the scenario we are talking about. There are plenty of people who cop works they wouldn't buy at all or buy at the price you ask. Therefore, if somebody of them copies your work, it does NOT mean that you're deprived of value equal to $RETAIL_PRICE_FOR_THAT_WORK. See, your assertion of being deprived does not hold for a (rather large) subset of cases, ergo it is not true in the general case. But again, people are made to believe this and given negative stimuli in the form of criminalization in order for copyright to work.
Either I have to get $40 million for the first item
Yep, this is how it should be. If you can't, then tough shit. If you invested a lot of money in something, it doesn't mean that the object of your investment has that much value or that you're entitled to get that money back.
As to your "should", you've already got enough answers (or questions) to this from other users.
Everyone who buys into this "physical product" definition of theft is forgetting one thing: A specific pattern of ones and zeroes IS a physical product!
No it isn't. A medium with a physical implementation of a sequence of ones and zeros is.
Theft is naturally bad because the one who you steal from is deprived of the thing you've stolen. This is not the case with copyright infringement that deals with non-tangible things costing nothing to reproduce. The result is a possibly lost sale to you; compare that to theft. Unlike theft, which is criminalized because it's bad, copyright infringement is criminalized (and being portrayed as bad) in order for copyright to work. It's this artificial nature of copyright that makes many people oppose it.
In both cases you are in possesion of something that you should have paid for to obtain, but you didn't.
Your "should" does not explain or substantiate anything. Why should I?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, yes, BPM software certainly has something to do with complex head scratching patterns.
Honestly, if I'm eliminated as a candidate because of information I've freely disclosed to the world (such as my taste in music), then I don't want to work there.
Amen to that.
If I understand correctly, the slowness has to do more with XML than with text vs. binary. GP mentioned it, but then provided this link which is probably less relevant to the issue...
VOIP has been getting a free ride since they can connect with the landline but have avoided the fee
How do they connect with the land line? By some magic? No - they are basically subscribers to a PSTN network and paid its operator for their subscription. Obviously PSTN operator's charges are calculated to cover all its expenses, including this fee. Therefore everything is already paid, albeit indirectly! FCC wants more money.
But what about this then?
d =15600258
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=189417&ci
I know everyone hates taxes, but really Vonage and the rest were using a loophole to not pay the taxes.
I doubt that. Basically I see the VoIP operators offering such services as PSTN subscribers, because VoIP to PSTN transition must happen on some node of the PSTN network and obviously based on an agreement with the PSTN operator. Therefore all taxes relative to this physical node have already been paid! FCC is just greedy here.
Imagine you installed a VoIP-to-PSTN device at your home so that all calls you're making from your possibly multiple VoIP devices appear as a regular calls via land line (in this simplest case only one call at a time will be possible). Will it be reasonable to tax you in this situation? Where are the taxes unpaid?
This is news to me. Always heard it like "aw".
It becomes harder for ISPs to offer new kinds of service.
No, it becomes harder for them to arbitrarily segment old services and offer the individual segments at higher prices.
Russia has over 30 official languages, so maybe english(although its not one of official ones) is used just for compatibility reasons?
:-)
No. The compatibility language is Russian
mostly called bydlosites*
* "bydlo" = sheeple
Ramen to that, brother!
Grammar police is coming after you and won't listen to any excuses!
:-D
"Tack så mycket" eller "Takk så mye"
The article said that the students have to sign training rules before they can participate in extra-curriculars. This is a contract between the student and school.
So apparently minors can't have all freedoms and anticipate consequences of their actions, and yet contracts signed by them are enforceable?
* Lack of properly implemented comment function (called Notes in Writer). This is essential for teamwork.
* Inconsistent visual model of paragraphs, which doesn't separate them properly as objects from each other. This is most clearly demonstrated on indented paras. To select a para with its associated formatting (which I need to do very often), you have to also select the indent of the following para! This is completely illogical, and you have to fine-tune your movement in order not to select text from second para by mistake. The quadruple-click method they suggest only selects the text content of the para.
* Manual breaks aren't shown as formatting characters. They are shown only in Print Layout mode and only when text margin are displayed. My main working mode, however, would be Web Layout, which allows me to concentrate on content, not formatting, and have continuous flow of text of arbitrary zoom wrapped to the window.
* Macro Recorder spews out something incomprehensive. VBA is much more readable.
* There's no quick and easy way to assign a key to a style or a symbol, besides recording a macro. This feature is a huge timesaver.
* An awkward system if dealing with bulleted and numbered lists with 2 levels of styles. This could be handy in principle, but needs to be unfucked up. Besides, I even can't visually set the indent of the para text from a bullet or number - have to enter a number into a text box. Still more, bullets and numbers tend to get screwed on round-trips between Writer and Word.
I think the list is not complete, but this is what has come to my mind so far and all those are pretty seriuos issues for me as a professional translator. That said, OOo is handy to have as an addition to MS Office - recently it saved me a couple of hunderds of pages screwed by Word 2000.
people are asked for their papers and arrested if they don't have them or they are suspected to be fake.
Well that practice is pretty common here in Russia. They cannot arrest you justr because you don't have an ID with you, but they can in principle detain you for 3 days "to ascertain your identity", if they so choose. Quite a few policemen extort money that way because of ridiculously low wages.
Actually, it's the very increase that is important here. Look, these 0,000...1% risk figures are given for an average person - your personal risk for getting brain tumour may very well be, say, 20% (God forbid). And if this is the case, you'd certainly want to know what can increase your risk.
But MS didn't treat THEM as customers. They were supposed to be an advertising tool that would help to attract customers.
I do, but it's still not :-(
OC is the same as OS, only in Cyrillic :-D And yes, the same abbreviation is used for Operating System at least in some Slavic languages.
Why "she"? Seriously, if you want to be politically correct, why do you replace one sexist form with another? "They" does sound stupid, but using it would be less absurd anyway.
Where are my mod points when I need them...
The same applies to fonts. To get fonts looking remotely acceptable in Linux, enable Apple's patented method of rending fonts, and copy over Microsoft's fonts. Then fonts in Linux rock!
Well at least for sans-serif fonts it's not the case for a long time already:
http://temcat.narod.ru/0.png
This is the free XLinSans font from dmtr40in-fonts package.
I thought you were writing a haiku.
He almost made it but the last line is one syllable too short.
You would argue that it is the MEDIUM that is the product.
It's not "productness" that matters, it's "physicality".
Theft is not naturally bad because you deprive someone of the thing you've stolen. It's bad because you have stolen the VALUE of that thing from them. Walmart isn't upset with you for stealing a shirt because they miss the shirt. They miss the VALUE of that shirt that they should have gotten for you to have that shirt.
Wrong. The value they miss is related only to the PHYSICAL PRESENCE of this shirt, which is a) the cost of reproducing it, and b) the missed opportunity to sell THIS SPECIFIC shirt to SOMEBODY ELSE who would be SURE TO BUY it but didn't because the shirt was absent. See all these constraints in caps? Everything beyond is just speculation - they are NOT guaranteed to sell it to a specific person or sell it at all. Which leads us to the following point.
I was waiting for the "possibly lost sale". This arguement also holds no water. It is true that many people who pirate things can't afford to buy what they pirated, and thus if they could not pirate, they would not have bought it anyway. But this is not the scenario we are talking about!
Why not? This is, IN PARTICULAR, the scenario we are talking about. There are plenty of people who cop works they wouldn't buy at all or buy at the price you ask. Therefore, if somebody of them copies your work, it does NOT mean that you're deprived of value equal to $RETAIL_PRICE_FOR_THAT_WORK. See, your assertion of being deprived does not hold for a (rather large) subset of cases, ergo it is not true in the general case. But again, people are made to believe this and given negative stimuli in the form of criminalization in order for copyright to work.
Either I have to get $40 million for the first item
Yep, this is how it should be. If you can't, then tough shit. If you invested a lot of money in something, it doesn't mean that the object of your investment has that much value or that you're entitled to get that money back.
As to your "should", you've already got enough answers (or questions) to this from other users.
Let me play another devil's advocate.
Everyone who buys into this "physical product" definition of theft is forgetting one thing: A specific pattern of ones and zeroes IS a physical product!
No it isn't. A medium with a physical implementation of a sequence of ones and zeros is.
Theft is naturally bad because the one who you steal from is deprived of the thing you've stolen. This is not the case with copyright infringement that deals with non-tangible things costing nothing to reproduce. The result is a possibly lost sale to you; compare that to theft. Unlike theft, which is criminalized because it's bad, copyright infringement is criminalized (and being portrayed as bad) in order for copyright to work. It's this artificial nature of copyright that makes many people oppose it.
In both cases you are in possesion of something that you should have paid for to obtain, but you didn't.
Your "should" does not explain or substantiate anything. Why should I?