Direct debit - here in Britain - is subject to vigorous protection. It requires you to give permission to your bank, and if you contest any of the charges then your branch is obliged to immediately refund them. To use it to steal money you would have to find someone absolutely acalculic.
Actually, it almost can. While court rulings in America are not binding on US courts in the same way as a US ruling in the same situation would be, they are advisory and can be used in the deliberations. This is true of all court systems that took their initial mandate from the English system.
I thought there were also some issues with roaming? I.e. that because of the high speed of flights, the unobstructed line of sight to towers and the fact you can see many towers at once, the switching between different towers could congest the system - reminiscent of the old days of analog phones that you couldn't use on a tall hill without breaking the network.
You should look at the Archos ones - with the latest firmware they have gapless playback. (And may always have had, I've never used mine without the firmware upgrades).
Why would you want it to be hardware based all the time? I personally like the level of control software-based fan control gives me. I like being able to turn the fans down if I decide it's safe, and the hardware override means that I can't fry my motherboard by hitting the wrong button.
Do you know that the documents aren't being saved in a strongly-encrypted format? I'm curious, since they could fairly easily implement it, and I'd be very reassured if they felt that they could spare the CPU time to protect my data - sort of an extra endorsement to Google's "Do no evil" ethos.
It's not that simple. You don't have to break the computer program, you have to break the legal system backing it up. If their 'tamper proof' system detects that something is wrong, they come and check nothing is. If you're using the system without seeing ads, they sue your ass out of existence. Whether it's difficult to break or not is largely irrelevant.
Why would they write this? 4x6 is 24, and every integer under 4 is a factor of 24. So they could have sadi "8 times as many", or "12 times as many". But why "More than 6 times"?
Sorry for the off topic post, but there's a term for laws against things that aren't, in themselves, wrong, like illegal immigration. Can anyone tell me what it is?
Why not put it in his foot/lower leg and put the reader under the mat? If you made the reading antenna mat-sized he'd be sure to stand on it to get in.
Then again, maybe you thought of that and I'm missing something obvious.
Uhm, I am assuming you have an extra digit in there becuase otherwise your numbers really don't make sense
Using my figures Bill has income $4bn/year and gave $29bn, meaning the total gift was 7.25 times his income. If the average income is $43,527, then the equivalent hit is $315,570. Noting that I admit that my figures are likely to be off the mark (see below) and that his gift was spread over 6 years, this still serves to rebut the presumption in the ggp that this is like 'giving a nickel'.
However, to counter...go look up the tax laws surrounding the rich and corporations. Most of 'the rich' have an income FAR below what kind of money they actually have to spend. It is derived from manipulation of tax codes and what not
This is true, although I suspect the real figure would still give you a fairly high donation. Good point.
Also...I can almost gaurontee in that $29bn in charity dollars....a huge chunk was not in cash or any other liquid asset. It was in Office XP donations to schools so they would have to buy Windows...or maybe even Windows...so they would all have to become trained Windows users instead of learning Linux or Mac in school.
This one's not true. Every cent of it was cash, and this is only his donation to the Gates foundation. I think we need to draw a line between Gates himself and MS; Gates has made large pecuniary donations out of philanthropy, Microsoft has donated to maintain its market dominance. No doubt you will tell me that the donations are not based in philanthropy. If so, point me to a reference explaining how it benefits him, in some concrete way. I think the fact that he's stepping down from a controlling role in the world's largest software company shows at least a modicum of sincerity.
Also...every cent of that donation figure is also used for tax purposes:). So...he gives tons of crap software away, enfocing his lockin, gets tons of free publicity on "see he isn't really bad", and gets a hefty tax write off. But he only did it out of the goodness of his heart....he only mercileslly crushes his competitors and steals their technology...he wouldn't have other motives for donations...
As I mentioned, he isn't giving software away. I'm not sure that he has any real need for publicity, but it's true that this move is good PR for him. The tax write off will be negligible compared to a $29bn donation, especially given the tax avoidance methods that are available to him that involve much less of a gift. And finally, I don't disagree with the fact that his business practices were unethical, I just maintain that he isn't using the proceeds entirely selfishly.
Like it or not, Microsoft made the money. I don't think there's a more moral thing for Gates to do with it than to fight disease and feed the poor. If you don't want to eat, that's your prerogative, but don't try to foist your ideals on those that actually have the choice to make.
I was responding to a criticism of Gates' donations to charity as insignificant; they aren't.
However, to take the bait, yes. I believe that in this case the end does justify the means. I don't believe that Microsoft's abuse of its monopoly position is right, but I do believe that very little of that $29bn would have gone to the poor if it hadn't first gone to Gates. At the end of the day, if all the money he earnt eventually goes to charity, what you've got is effectively a tax, with all the proceeds going to the poor. I don't see that as such a terrible thing.
I think some of your criticism is a little harsh. According to WP, Bill has a net worth of $46bn and has given over $29bn to charity through his foundation in the last 6 years. His fortune is expected to increase to $50bn this year. So, to change your analogy, this isn't like you dropping a nickel in the homeless guy's cup. Based on the average American yearly income of $43,527 (Source: census.gov), this is the equivalent of you giving the homeless guy $315,570. Perhaps this is an unfair comparison, but it's more accurate than likening it to one nickel.
Answer,ROT13, for those that aren't full awake/alive: Sebz gur svyz Jnetnzrf (1983). Frr uggc://jjj.vzqo.pbz/gvgyr/gg0086567/
Re:What would be cool...
on
Talking iPods
·
· Score: 1
I can see two problems with querying locally - although I believe the capability should be there for those times when you don't have internet (tunnels etc - remember I'm looking forward to more ubiquitous access)
-Updating the database - either you need regular downloads of new songs, or you can only query the music you've got; these possibilities are both inferior, IMO, to server-side query and download.
-Searching speed. My music collection runs to 20,000 tracks, all of which I want to have with me. Once you factor in approximations, background noise filtering etc, this is going to be - again IMO - too much for mobile devices. And it seems to me that we can't just say "Well, in the future mobile processors will be faster", because that ignores the fact that my media library is growing. Next year, I might have 30,000 tracks. I don't want to hum and wait, I want to hum and listen.
Re:What would be cool...
on
Talking iPods
·
· Score: 1
But will an iPod ever have the computing power necessary to do voice matching on a music library? I suspect that this will always require a more powerful computer.
Slashdot Mirror
Direct debit - here in Britain - is subject to vigorous protection. It requires you to give permission to your bank, and if you contest any of the charges then your branch is obliged to immediately refund them. To use it to steal money you would have to find someone absolutely acalculic.
Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear... I need some sleep :(
For "America" read "Australia"...
Actually, it almost can. While court rulings in America are not binding on US courts in the same way as a US ruling in the same situation would be, they are advisory and can be used in the deliberations. This is true of all court systems that took their initial mandate from the English system.
I thought there were also some issues with roaming? I.e. that because of the high speed of flights, the unobstructed line of sight to towers and the fact you can see many towers at once, the switching between different towers could congest the system - reminiscent of the old days of analog phones that you couldn't use on a tall hill without breaking the network.
Well, according to the Royal Mail, he's in Reindeerland and can be reached using the postcode SAN TA1.
What laptop do you have? I thought mine was good, and it only gets 4.5 - 5 depending on usage. (That's on the rather measly internal)
You should look at the Archos ones - with the latest firmware they have gapless playback. (And may always have had, I've never used mine without the firmware upgrades).
Why would you want it to be hardware based all the time? I personally like the level of control software-based fan control gives me. I like being able to turn the fans down if I decide it's safe, and the hardware override means that I can't fry my motherboard by hitting the wrong button.
Do you know that the documents aren't being saved in a strongly-encrypted format? I'm curious, since they could fairly easily implement it, and I'd be very reassured if they felt that they could spare the CPU time to protect my data - sort of an extra endorsement to Google's "Do no evil" ethos.
Reminds me of this comic
It's not that simple. You don't have to break the computer program, you have to break the legal system backing it up. If their 'tamper proof' system detects that something is wrong, they come and check nothing is. If you're using the system without seeing ads, they sue your ass out of existence. Whether it's difficult to break or not is largely irrelevant.
Why would they write this? 4x6 is 24, and every integer under 4 is a factor of 24. So they could have sadi "8 times as many", or "12 times as many". But why "More than 6 times"?
I don't suppose anyone has experience with a UK POD service?
Sorry for the off topic post, but there's a term for laws against things that aren't, in themselves, wrong, like illegal immigration. Can anyone tell me what it is?
Why not put it in his foot/lower leg and put the reader under the mat? If you made the reading antenna mat-sized he'd be sure to stand on it to get in.
Then again, maybe you thought of that and I'm missing something obvious.
Ubuntu comes on one CD. With free delivery if you don't want to download it.
I was dealing with income, not net worth. That's why I had 4bn and 46bn.
Perhaps he's not being sincere, perhaps cynicism is right again. But it would be nice if it's genuine - and so far, I think it looks like it is.
Uhm, I am assuming you have an extra digit in there becuase otherwise your numbers really don't make sense
:). So...he gives tons of crap software away, enfocing his lockin, gets tons of free publicity on "see he isn't really bad", and gets a hefty tax write off. But he only did it out of the goodness of his heart....he only mercileslly crushes his competitors and steals their technology...he wouldn't have other motives for donations...
Using my figures Bill has income $4bn/year and gave $29bn, meaning the total gift was 7.25 times his income. If the average income is $43,527, then the equivalent hit is $315,570. Noting that I admit that my figures are likely to be off the mark (see below) and that his gift was spread over 6 years, this still serves to rebut the presumption in the ggp that this is like 'giving a nickel'.
However, to counter...go look up the tax laws surrounding the rich and corporations. Most of 'the rich' have an income FAR below what kind of money they actually have to spend. It is derived from manipulation of tax codes and what not
This is true, although I suspect the real figure would still give you a fairly high donation. Good point.
Also...I can almost gaurontee in that $29bn in charity dollars....a huge chunk was not in cash or any other liquid asset. It was in Office XP donations to schools so they would have to buy Windows...or maybe even Windows...so they would all have to become trained Windows users instead of learning Linux or Mac in school.
This one's not true. Every cent of it was cash, and this is only his donation to the Gates foundation. I think we need to draw a line between Gates himself and MS; Gates has made large pecuniary donations out of philanthropy, Microsoft has donated to maintain its market dominance. No doubt you will tell me that the donations are not based in philanthropy. If so, point me to a reference explaining how it benefits him, in some concrete way. I think the fact that he's stepping down from a controlling role in the world's largest software company shows at least a modicum of sincerity.
Also...every cent of that donation figure is also used for tax purposes
As I mentioned, he isn't giving software away. I'm not sure that he has any real need for publicity, but it's true that this move is good PR for him. The tax write off will be negligible compared to a $29bn donation, especially given the tax avoidance methods that are available to him that involve much less of a gift. And finally, I don't disagree with the fact that his business practices were unethical, I just maintain that he isn't using the proceeds entirely selfishly.
Like it or not, Microsoft made the money. I don't think there's a more moral thing for Gates to do with it than to fight disease and feed the poor. If you don't want to eat, that's your prerogative, but don't try to foist your ideals on those that actually have the choice to make.
I was responding to a criticism of Gates' donations to charity as insignificant; they aren't.
However, to take the bait, yes. I believe that in this case the end does justify the means. I don't believe that Microsoft's abuse of its monopoly position is right, but I do believe that very little of that $29bn would have gone to the poor if it hadn't first gone to Gates. At the end of the day, if all the money he earnt eventually goes to charity, what you've got is effectively a tax, with all the proceeds going to the poor. I don't see that as such a terrible thing.
I think some of your criticism is a little harsh. According to WP, Bill has a net worth of $46bn and has given over $29bn to charity through his foundation in the last 6 years. His fortune is expected to increase to $50bn this year. So, to change your analogy, this isn't like you dropping a nickel in the homeless guy's cup. Based on the average American yearly income of $43,527 (Source: census.gov), this is the equivalent of you giving the homeless guy $315,570. Perhaps this is an unfair comparison, but it's more accurate than likening it to one nickel.
Answer,ROT13, for those that aren't full awake/alive: Sebz gur svyz Jnetnzrf (1983). Frr uggc://jjj.vzqo.pbz/gvgyr/gg0086567/
I can see two problems with querying locally - although I believe the capability should be there for those times when you don't have internet (tunnels etc - remember I'm looking forward to more ubiquitous access)
-Updating the database - either you need regular downloads of new songs, or you can only query the music you've got; these possibilities are both inferior, IMO, to server-side query and download.
-Searching speed. My music collection runs to 20,000 tracks, all of which I want to have with me. Once you factor in approximations, background noise filtering etc, this is going to be - again IMO - too much for mobile devices. And it seems to me that we can't just say "Well, in the future mobile processors will be faster", because that ignores the fact that my media library is growing. Next year, I might have 30,000 tracks. I don't want to hum and wait, I want to hum and listen.
But will an iPod ever have the computing power necessary to do voice matching on a music library? I suspect that this will always require a more powerful computer.