After watching the rest of the presidential debates I didn't know who to vote for because I didn't like either candidate. After watching the Third Party debate tonight, I don't know who to vote for because I liked all the candidates.
We as a nation always complain about our 2 party system and all the problems that come with it. We also frequently joke about how neither of the candidates are exceptional. We then proceed to completely ignore all third party candidates. Realistically no third party candidate can win, but the more votes they get, the more seriously they will be taken in the future. Parties need to get 15% to get in these debates. If you view this system a bit like a free market, that's like saying a small business needs to take 15% market share from two colluding conglomerates. The third parties have been almost entirely ignored by the major political news dialog. Part of that is the fault of the news organizations that specialize to target a major political demographic, but part of that problem is us.
I like how he tried to sneak laptops in there at the end. You can definitely do REAL business on a laptop. In fact, my life would be a hassle if you couldn't, I take a laptop everywhere with me. Laptop + Smart-phone-Hotspot = business ANYWHERE. You might be able to get more power for the price with a desktop, but there are very few jobs where PC performance is an issue.
I'm shocked that people think not letting others know their political actions is an issue of liberty or privacy. Would it be okay if your state representative didn't tell you how he/she voted on bills? Everyone in this thread is blathering about their political opinions on the internet, but put that opinion in a check box on a public government form and suddenly it's encroaching on your civil rights. If you are so insecure about who/what you vote for, don't vote. All political/government actions, aside from national security, need to have public transparency. Your vote is your participation and collaboration with the rest of our society; it IS a social, public form of communication. Not only are peoples ideology blinding them to the true nature of this issue, but they are essentially advocating government corruption and identity theft. If your vote can't be traced back to you, then you can't be traced to your vote. The votes on your ballots could be changed, and since that ballot can't be traced back to you, someone just successfully stole your identity to rig an election. Congratulation, you have succeeded in hiding your vote, now truly no one knows what your vote was. Grow up and be proud of your political opinion. Put your big boy pants on and participate in meaningful, finite, social discourse.
An Excel/Calc file. No DB setup, even though it acts like a DB. Almost as quick to open as a ext file. Has many many more feature than a text file. Also, consider using a Google Doc spreadsheet for even more features, at the cost of needing an internet connection to access.
We were told at a young age that grammar is quite important and grammar lessons were drilled into us, which is why we feel the urge to correct other's grammar when we see mistakes. However, grammar is a tool of language, which has the ultimate goal of conveying information. Thus, I'd say grammar is only important so far as it helps convey information. If you can under-stand what I'm saying hear, than grammar is nothing more then a miled annoyance.
Did I miss something? I was under the impression that there have been multiple experiments converting average cells into stem cells. Was there a conversation at some point like, "Well I suppose we could learn how to make a stem cell bath, OR we could just subject this girl to excruciating pain. To be fair, she's likely already be in a lot of pain, so it wouldn't be THAT much worse..."
Contributory infringement doesn't seem like it would fit in this situation, unless you knew your friends were going to use the software in an infringing manner. I could be wrong, but it sounds like you, as a friend, are simply a referrer. If you don't know your referral is being used illegitimately you wouldn't be abetting. It would be akin to 2 of your friends robbing a bank, and you getting charged with a crime because they met through facebook with you as a mutual friend.
I whole heartedly agree. Video game tastes differ just as music taste do. He may not want to be in the business of making interactive movie, just as he may not want to be in the business of making pop song, but that doesn't degrade their market value. --And yes, I think if interactive movies were songs they'd be the pop songs of the gaming world: over produced, over hyped, catchy, low replay value.
I 100% agree. Out of all the things that major corporations do to collude and monopolize (Microsoft definitely not excluded), I can't believe how much of a deal people make about the addition of software to operating systems. --And I'm not a Micro$oft fan-boy, but people don't even seem to be equal-opportunity anti-trust criers. Apple is way way more likely to be guilty of leveraging monopolistic tendencies in this vein of logic, than M$ is, yet I seldom hear a peep about them.
Microsoft relies on market cornering strategies for the crux of their monopolization. Apple is the one who has always used the stadium concessions approach to monopolize, and not a single person, save apparently me, seems to be crying about that these days.
In the past I chalked that discrepancy up to the vast difference in the size of the 2 companies, but that's no longer a valid excuse, especially considering how much money Apple throws at its devil's disguise.
Colleges aren't dealers of knowledge as much as they are of branding. The college pitch has always been one of a luxury good. Now days, they try to pitch that it's a required luxury, which is moronic, but none the less, the case. Colleges have spent tons of money and effort weaving their narrative of college into our culture. In fact, even earlier posts in this thread demonstrate how pervasive their advertising has gone. Like Apple fans un-knowingly regurgitating subliminal-ish advertising.
Before I get too far out in left field, my point is, for that method to work they require that knowledge be viewed as a luxury good. The Internet has the ability to make storage and dispersal of knowledge nearly free and extremely accessible. Thus, to colleges, technology is candy being offered by a man in a window-less van. The environment has been changing, and colleges will have to adapt or go extinct, but like with everything else, until their hand is forced they will continue to grasp at what has worked in the past. --Which is, throwing money at branding opportunities like research and sports instead of worrying about pesky things like quality, efficiency, or quantity of information exchange.
Personally, I think design flaws is a much more damming claim to make about your product than a bug report. A bug is a low implementation level issue/oversight. A design flaw means your product is rubbish from the ground-up. I would MUCH rather someone say my software had a bud than that there were design issues. I doubt this is going to be a trend that catches-on. The only way I think it could possibly help a company to make such a damming claim would be if it took the words vulnerability or security off the table, which have a much worse connotation. --Although, design flaws create vulnerabilities and security concerns, so even that doesn't seem likely, IMHO.
One day history data will look back on things like this with great disdain and disappointment. As we feel about many of the ignorant backward beliefs of previous generations. Probably not until our society fixes it's economy, and gets producers of IP payed for producing the IP and not monopolizing distribution of it. --Which, granted won't be for quite some time, but still...
Is this really a criminal offense?! It seems to fly in the face a free speech. I know the UK and the US don't see completely eye-to-eye on free speech issues, and the UK is more likely to have these kind of pandering laws, but still... I could understand a lawsuit for defamation of character or some such thing, but not a criminal charge. If "sending malicious communications" is really a legal matter, than almost everyone posting in this thread is breaking the law. Is our society really in favor of such nonsense, or is this just another one of those 'the police don't like getting video taped, and no one prevented them from making-up laws yet' kind of things.
Don't get me wrong, I think that guy was an incredible jackass and deserves his just reward, but I certainly don't think he committed a criminal offense, and I likewise don't think I committed a criminal offense by calling him a jackass just now!
In my current wireless networks list, as I write this is, there is an available network called "MadPD_SurveillanceVan_013", and there IS in fact a Madison surveillance van out on the street. --So this does not in any way surprise me. Granted the vehicle ID bit makes sense, but just because his FB post didn't include one doesn't mean that the actual SSID didn't originally have one. If I were making a facebook post I don't think I would be too concerned about the "_013" when making the post.
--And he had a very good point about the naming convention, or to be more accurate, the fact that the SSID was being publicly broadcast at all... I'm sure if I really wanted to, and the van wasn't using MAC filtering, I could hack my way onto the van's network and poke around. I mean, I don't have anything to hide and I have better security than that. Police don't even want to be video-taped doing their civil service, and can't muster-up the security precautions to hide their SSID. Someone is not doing their job properly.
We agree that software patents are bad. That's a good start. However, we do not agree that the patent process is otherwise only plagued by a bad patent office, or that the patent system is good.
Patents not only cause harm, they don't cause good. Let's start with the main argument FOR patents, which is that they create a supply of inventors/producers/artists/etc. This argument is unproven, and clearly (as we agree with software patent) circumstantial at best.
Patents don't encourage inventors to keep inventing, they encourage inventors to become producers. In every situation I can think of; Pharma, Art, Software, Mechanics, etc. they attempt to encourage I.P. creators to continue creating I.P., but instead only succeed in encouraging them to shift their resources into goods production, and patent leveraging. Thus, they fail at creating good.
Now for the harm. Patents are exactly a government issues monopoly. Monopolies and Unions are the Sith Lords of free market economics. A monopoly is less efficient than an unrestricted market at producing the proper quantity of goods. Not only are goods priced higher than they should be, but less goods are produced than needed, which is a double whammy when viewing the situation at the social level. Not to mention any break-down of equitable wealth distribution.
Not only does it cause the monopoly issue on the consumer end, patents are also the absence of collaboration. If you patent the cup, and I patent the ball, our society can never invent the cup-and-ball game. This notion is very prevalent in software, but it certainly isn't limited to software, it's just a bit more of a glaringly obvious example.
Slashdot Mirror
After watching the rest of the presidential debates I didn't know who to vote for because I didn't like either candidate. After watching the Third Party debate tonight, I don't know who to vote for because I liked all the candidates.
We as a nation always complain about our 2 party system and all the problems that come with it. We also frequently joke about how neither of the candidates are exceptional. We then proceed to completely ignore all third party candidates. Realistically no third party candidate can win, but the more votes they get, the more seriously they will be taken in the future. Parties need to get 15% to get in these debates. If you view this system a bit like a free market, that's like saying a small business needs to take 15% market share from two colluding conglomerates. The third parties have been almost entirely ignored by the major political news dialog. Part of that is the fault of the news organizations that specialize to target a major political demographic, but part of that problem is us.
I like how he tried to sneak laptops in there at the end. You can definitely do REAL business on a laptop. In fact, my life would be a hassle if you couldn't, I take a laptop everywhere with me. Laptop + Smart-phone-Hotspot = business ANYWHERE. You might be able to get more power for the price with a desktop, but there are very few jobs where PC performance is an issue.
I'm shocked that people think not letting others know their political actions is an issue of liberty or privacy. Would it be okay if your state representative didn't tell you how he/she voted on bills? Everyone in this thread is blathering about their political opinions on the internet, but put that opinion in a check box on a public government form and suddenly it's encroaching on your civil rights. If you are so insecure about who/what you vote for, don't vote. All political/government actions, aside from national security, need to have public transparency. Your vote is your participation and collaboration with the rest of our society; it IS a social, public form of communication.
Not only are peoples ideology blinding them to the true nature of this issue, but they are essentially advocating government corruption and identity theft. If your vote can't be traced back to you, then you can't be traced to your vote. The votes on your ballots could be changed, and since that ballot can't be traced back to you, someone just successfully stole your identity to rig an election. Congratulation, you have succeeded in hiding your vote, now truly no one knows what your vote was.
Grow up and be proud of your political opinion. Put your big boy pants on and participate in meaningful, finite, social discourse.
" It's not really very compelling, and it ALMOST caused me to stop reading the article right there."
You sir, are a better man than I.
An Excel/Calc file. No DB setup, even though it acts like a DB. Almost as quick to open as a ext file. Has many many more feature than a text file. Also, consider using a Google Doc spreadsheet for even more features, at the cost of needing an internet connection to access.
We were told at a young age that grammar is quite important and grammar lessons were drilled into us, which is why we feel the urge to correct other's grammar when we see mistakes. However, grammar is a tool of language, which has the ultimate goal of conveying information. Thus, I'd say grammar is only important so far as it helps convey information. If you can under-stand what I'm saying hear, than grammar is nothing more then a miled annoyance.
Bank report says,"Banks are awesome!"
Did I miss something? I was under the impression that there have been multiple experiments converting average cells into stem cells. Was there a conversation at some point like, "Well I suppose we could learn how to make a stem cell bath, OR we could just subject this girl to excruciating pain. To be fair, she's likely already be in a lot of pain, so it wouldn't be THAT much worse..."
Why should anyone get lag in a single player game?
The obvious reason is because DRM is cool! duh!
Contributory infringement doesn't seem like it would fit in this situation, unless you knew your friends were going to use the software in an infringing manner. I could be wrong, but it sounds like you, as a friend, are simply a referrer. If you don't know your referral is being used illegitimately you wouldn't be abetting. It would be akin to 2 of your friends robbing a bank, and you getting charged with a crime because they met through facebook with you as a mutual friend.
I whole heartedly agree. Video game tastes differ just as music taste do. He may not want to be in the business of making interactive movie, just as he may not want to be in the business of making pop song, but that doesn't degrade their market value. --And yes, I think if interactive movies were songs they'd be the pop songs of the gaming world: over produced, over hyped, catchy, low replay value.
Is the bane of the 124th employee.
I 100% agree. Out of all the things that major corporations do to collude and monopolize (Microsoft definitely not excluded), I can't believe how much of a deal people make about the addition of software to operating systems. --And I'm not a Micro$oft fan-boy, but people don't even seem to be equal-opportunity anti-trust criers. Apple is way way more likely to be guilty of leveraging monopolistic tendencies in this vein of logic, than M$ is, yet I seldom hear a peep about them.
Microsoft relies on market cornering strategies for the crux of their monopolization. Apple is the one who has always used the stadium concessions approach to monopolize, and not a single person, save apparently me, seems to be crying about that these days.
In the past I chalked that discrepancy up to the vast difference in the size of the 2 companies, but that's no longer a valid excuse, especially considering how much money Apple throws at its devil's disguise.
"pubic representative."
tee hee.
No, but seriously, you have a good point.
Don't hate the playa', hate the game.
Colleges aren't dealers of knowledge as much as they are of branding. The college pitch has always been one of a luxury good. Now days, they try to pitch that it's a required luxury, which is moronic, but none the less, the case. Colleges have spent tons of money and effort weaving their narrative of college into our culture. In fact, even earlier posts in this thread demonstrate how pervasive their advertising has gone. Like Apple fans un-knowingly regurgitating subliminal-ish advertising.
Before I get too far out in left field, my point is, for that method to work they require that knowledge be viewed as a luxury good. The Internet has the ability to make storage and dispersal of knowledge nearly free and extremely accessible. Thus, to colleges, technology is candy being offered by a man in a window-less van. The environment has been changing, and colleges will have to adapt or go extinct, but like with everything else, until their hand is forced they will continue to grasp at what has worked in the past. --Which is, throwing money at branding opportunities like research and sports instead of worrying about pesky things like quality, efficiency, or quantity of information exchange.
Personally, I think design flaws is a much more damming claim to make about your product than a bug report. A bug is a low implementation level issue/oversight. A design flaw means your product is rubbish from the ground-up. I would MUCH rather someone say my software had a bud than that there were design issues. I doubt this is going to be a trend that catches-on. The only way I think it could possibly help a company to make such a damming claim would be if it took the words vulnerability or security off the table, which have a much worse connotation. --Although, design flaws create vulnerabilities and security concerns, so even that doesn't seem likely, IMHO.
One day history data will look back on things like this with great disdain and disappointment. As we feel about many of the ignorant backward beliefs of previous generations. Probably not until our society fixes it's economy, and gets producers of IP payed for producing the IP and not monopolizing distribution of it. --Which, granted won't be for quite some time, but still...
Is this really a criminal offense?! It seems to fly in the face a free speech. I know the UK and the US don't see completely eye-to-eye on free speech issues, and the UK is more likely to have these kind of pandering laws, but still... I could understand a lawsuit for defamation of character or some such thing, but not a criminal charge. If "sending malicious communications" is really a legal matter, than almost everyone posting in this thread is breaking the law. Is our society really in favor of such nonsense, or is this just another one of those 'the police don't like getting video taped, and no one prevented them from making-up laws yet' kind of things.
Don't get me wrong, I think that guy was an incredible jackass and deserves his just reward, but I certainly don't think he committed a criminal offense, and I likewise don't think I committed a criminal offense by calling him a jackass just now!
Duke Nukem: Mahjong Edition
assuming the simplest answer is right is not "assuming an awful lot", it is in fact only assuming on thing, and it is the right assumption.
In my current wireless networks list, as I write this is, there is an available network called "MadPD_SurveillanceVan_013", and there IS in fact a Madison surveillance van out on the street. --So this does not in any way surprise me. Granted the vehicle ID bit makes sense, but just because his FB post didn't include one doesn't mean that the actual SSID didn't originally have one. If I were making a facebook post I don't think I would be too concerned about the "_013" when making the post.
--And he had a very good point about the naming convention, or to be more accurate, the fact that the SSID was being publicly broadcast at all... I'm sure if I really wanted to, and the van wasn't using MAC filtering, I could hack my way onto the van's network and poke around. I mean, I don't have anything to hide and I have better security than that. Police don't even want to be video-taped doing their civil service, and can't muster-up the security precautions to hide their SSID. Someone is not doing their job properly.
We agree that software patents are bad. That's a good start. However, we do not agree that the patent process is otherwise only plagued by a bad patent office, or that the patent system is good.
Patents not only cause harm, they don't cause good. Let's start with the main argument FOR patents, which is that they create a supply of inventors/producers/artists/etc. This argument is unproven, and clearly (as we agree with software patent) circumstantial at best.
Patents don't encourage inventors to keep inventing, they encourage inventors to become producers. In every situation I can think of; Pharma, Art, Software, Mechanics, etc. they attempt to encourage I.P. creators to continue creating I.P., but instead only succeed in encouraging them to shift their resources into goods production, and patent leveraging. Thus, they fail at creating good.
Now for the harm. Patents are exactly a government issues monopoly. Monopolies and Unions are the Sith Lords of free market economics. A monopoly is less efficient than an unrestricted market at producing the proper quantity of goods. Not only are goods priced higher than they should be, but less goods are produced than needed, which is a double whammy when viewing the situation at the social level. Not to mention any break-down of equitable wealth distribution.
Not only does it cause the monopoly issue on the consumer end, patents are also the absence of collaboration. If you patent the cup, and I patent the ball, our society can never invent the cup-and-ball game. This notion is very prevalent in software, but it certainly isn't limited to software, it's just a bit more of a glaringly obvious example.
Despite the similarities, that is not a Dr.Who OR Battlestar Balactica reference. You have to actually be a tad more nerdy than even that to get it.