Possibly.
8. Open Internet access. Microsoft will design and license Windows so that it does not block access to any lawful Web site or impose any fee for reaching any non-Microsoft Web site or using any non-Microsoft Web service.
Though this more or less seems to say "we promise to design and implement a content-agnostic system." As if that's an "Opportunity..."
So do I. In both cases, the laws are definitely enforced on those who buy their goods in a primary market.
However, in the case of digital media, the enforcement, because it is part of "the product", encumbers all downstream users. If I buy a DRMed CD and then give|trade it to my sister, her fair use rights are as infringed as mine were. If I buy a gun, use it, and then give|trade it to her, I experience gun control (waiting period, background checks, yadda yadda) but she does not.
Summation:
More questions: Why is digital content more encumbered than a firearm? Why are primary market participants consider "legitimate" while all others (included secondary market participants) are illegimate?
You have some interesting points. It would be interesting, trying to live more like the Pueblo, the Kiowa, or the Navajo. For example, how much more energy efficient would a longhouse-style building be than the cookie-cutter homes now springing up wherever there's a housing boom in Texas? And yes, the longhouse/hogan concept belongs more the Five-Nations Confederacy, but I think some of the farmer/fisher nations of East Texas used similar structures, if not the same materials.
I live in a place where the "ambient outdoor temperature" can kill people. If the daily high climbs above 100F and stays there for more then a few days, some of the less-prepared elderly start dying of heat exhaustion. In fact, a lot of people live in places where the ambient outdoor temperature can kill - either from heat stroke or from hypothermia. That is the whole point of climate-controlled homes, offices, and vehicles.
"Everyone live like you're outdoors" addresses energy conservation in the same way that "Everyone stop having sex" addresses the AIDS crisis.
You've touched on another fun point that I missed. Hollyweird and the ??IA seem to have a vested interest in treating us all like naughty little children without any self-control. Making us all wear diapers and eliminate on ourselves during their movies is a perfectally reasonable solution.
Ergo, the entire point of the article is moot, he painted what he saw and understood, that - believe it or not - is what artists do. Why people have to waste their time trying to comprehend why Van Gogh painted turbulence is beyond me...
"Publish or Perish?"
But yes, the idea that Van Gogh, at a time when he was most divorced from reality, created things of such mathematical precision is very interesting, particularly as an example of the union of madness and genius.
The Court also handed down several companion rulings:
First, that closing one's eyes or looking away during commercials, previews, gratuitous violence, sex, or nudity is an abridgement of copyright as it results in a derivative work without the consent of the copyright holders.
Secondly, that because going to the bathroom during the boring parts (and the court in no way implies that there are boring parts in Hollywood movies) also results in the creation of a derivative work, it is also forbidden by law.
Thirdly, that because some persons have been known to talk over or about the soundtrack, dialog, or events of movies, thus creating an unauthorized derivative combination of commentary and the original cinematic release in violation of copyright, movies may only be watched by persons without mouths.
There's a nuance here you may not grasp. Mr. Watada is an US Army officer; the President is in his Chain of Command (specifically, at the very top of it). Speaking ill of one's superiors in public is insubordination. AFAIK, members of the armed forces do not have the same 1st (and possibly 4th and 5th) amendments rights as the rest of us. What Mr. Watada did was criminal.
Full disclosure: I'm an Army brat married to an Air Force brat. My father was an Air Force brat. Two of his brothers went Army; one went Air Force (we talk to him anyway). My wife's grandfather went ashore at Normandy on D-Day. My family has mass quantities of experience with the military, its laws, and its culture.
If I'm close enough to try to kill someone with my bare hands, he's probably close enough to try to kill me (or my wife...or any children present) with his bare hands. Thanks, but no thanks.
If I ever need to kill someone, I want to do it with as much distance as possible between myself and the target.
Full disclosure I am a fairly orthodox Christian, but not a trained apologist. My assessment of the key testing points is guaranteed to be partial and may be totally wrong. But I don't think it is.
I think (perhaps) what he meant to say is that the strongest Christians are those who examine other faiths (either systematically or as they are encountered) and Christianity comparatively for the purpose of finding and understanding Truth, whatever it may be. A helpful phrasing of the question might boil down to "What if I'm wrong?" Stated a little more specifically, that question might be: "Does evidence (or a chain of superior reasoning) exist to suggest that my beliefs do not accurately reflect the state of things?" It should be noted that there are a few key assumptions being made here:
1) There is such a thing as Truth.
2) Truth can be known.
Christianity can be thought of as taking off from these two points to state the following:
3) Truth is a Person
4) That Person alreadys knows you, and wants you to know Him.
5) That Person was physically incarnated, crucified, and resurrected, all of His own free will (and without committing any sins that would justify His conviction and execution as a criminal).
A note on point 4 - more liberal Christian theologians might say She or It.
Testing seems to occur at the points where Christianity states that God interfaced with (or instantiated Himself into) the created world: The Bible and its reliability, the existence of Jesus Christ, the manner of his life and death, the question of his resurrection, etc. According to Paul, the resurrection was one of the key points. "If in this life only we have hope in Christ we are of all men most pitiable" (I Corinthians 15:19) There may be other points, but these are the places where I've been challlenged personally.
Yes, most of the ideas are bizarre in the extreme. However, the handset that's designed to be used like a picture frame does make a certain amount of sense to me. Given the choice between talking to the back of my cellphone while it's in speakerphone mode and talking to a little pseudo picture-frame on my desk, I'll choose the latter.
Slashdot Mirror
Without those two, it would be to paraphrase Zathras, "Not the same, not the same."
Possibly.
8. Open Internet access. Microsoft will design and license Windows so that it does not block access to any lawful Web site or impose any fee for reaching any non-Microsoft Web site or using any non-Microsoft Web service.
Though this more or less seems to say "we promise to design and implement a content-agnostic system." As if that's an "Opportunity..."
So do I. In both cases, the laws are definitely enforced on those who buy their goods in a primary market.
However, in the case of digital media, the enforcement, because it is part of "the product", encumbers all downstream users. If I buy a DRMed CD and then give|trade it to my sister, her fair use rights are as infringed as mine were. If I buy a gun, use it, and then give|trade it to her, I experience gun control (waiting period, background checks, yadda yadda) but she does not.
Summation:
More questions: Why is digital content more encumbered than a firearm? Why are primary market participants consider "legitimate" while all others (included secondary market participants) are illegimate?
I can think of a reason why their stock link doesn't work, at the very least: embarassing results. Infinium Labs is a literal penny stock.
It sounds like ye olde Zen negative effort paradox, the exact mechanics of which I cannot claim to be able to adequately communicate.
You have some interesting points. It would be interesting, trying to live more like the Pueblo, the Kiowa, or the Navajo. For example, how much more energy efficient would a longhouse-style building be than the cookie-cutter homes now springing up wherever there's a housing boom in Texas? And yes, the longhouse/hogan concept belongs more the Five-Nations Confederacy, but I think some of the farmer/fisher nations of East Texas used similar structures, if not the same materials.
I live in a place where the "ambient outdoor temperature" can kill people. If the daily high climbs above 100F and stays there for more then a few days, some of the less-prepared elderly start dying of heat exhaustion. In fact, a lot of people live in places where the ambient outdoor temperature can kill - either from heat stroke or from hypothermia. That is the whole point of climate-controlled homes, offices, and vehicles.
"Everyone live like you're outdoors" addresses energy conservation in the same way that "Everyone stop having sex" addresses the AIDS crisis.
You've touched on another fun point that I missed. Hollyweird and the ??IA seem to have a vested interest in treating us all like naughty little children without any self-control. Making us all wear diapers and eliminate on ourselves during their movies is a perfectally reasonable solution.
I concede. The criticism is fair. My apologies to the poster I might have offended.
So...AOL users will finally get their money's worth?
Dear Poster, I was attempting satire. Apparently, I did not attempt it vigorously enough. GP
The sad part is that in many cases, the product of the trip to the restroom has greater instrinic value.
"Publish or Perish?"
But yes, the idea that Van Gogh, at a time when he was most divorced from reality, created things of such mathematical precision is very interesting, particularly as an example of the union of madness and genius.
The Court also handed down several companion rulings:
First, that closing one's eyes or looking away during commercials, previews, gratuitous violence, sex, or nudity is an abridgement of copyright as it results in a derivative work without the consent of the copyright holders.
Secondly, that because going to the bathroom during the boring parts (and the court in no way implies that there are boring parts in Hollywood movies) also results in the creation of a derivative work, it is also forbidden by law.
Thirdly, that because some persons have been known to talk over or about the soundtrack, dialog, or events of movies, thus creating an unauthorized derivative combination of commentary and the original cinematic release in violation of copyright, movies may only be watched by persons without mouths.
Should we be expecting the Rise of the Termoonators anytime soon?
Full disclosure: I'm an Army brat married to an Air Force brat. My father was an Air Force brat. Two of his brothers went Army; one went Air Force (we talk to him anyway). My wife's grandfather went ashore at Normandy on D-Day. My family has mass quantities of experience with the military, its laws, and its culture.
What is an EMBA? Experienced? Extreme? Engineering? Extraneous?
If I'm close enough to try to kill someone with my bare hands, he's probably close enough to try to kill me (or my wife...or any children present) with his bare hands. Thanks, but no thanks.
If I ever need to kill someone, I want to do it with as much distance as possible between myself and the target.
Full disclosure I am a fairly orthodox Christian, but not a trained apologist. My assessment of the key testing points is guaranteed to be partial and may be totally wrong. But I don't think it is.
I think (perhaps) what he meant to say is that the strongest Christians are those who examine other faiths (either systematically or as they are encountered) and Christianity comparatively for the purpose of finding and understanding Truth, whatever it may be. A helpful phrasing of the question might boil down to "What if I'm wrong?" Stated a little more specifically, that question might be: "Does evidence (or a chain of superior reasoning) exist to suggest that my beliefs do not accurately reflect the state of things?" It should be noted that there are a few key assumptions being made here:
1) There is such a thing as Truth.
2) Truth can be known.
Christianity can be thought of as taking off from these two points to state the following:
3) Truth is a Person
4) That Person alreadys knows you, and wants you to know Him.
5) That Person was physically incarnated, crucified, and resurrected, all of His own free will (and without committing any sins that would justify His conviction and execution as a criminal).
A note on point 4 - more liberal Christian theologians might say She or It.
Testing seems to occur at the points where Christianity states that God interfaced with (or instantiated Himself into) the created world: The Bible and its reliability, the existence of Jesus Christ, the manner of his life and death, the question of his resurrection, etc. According to Paul, the resurrection was one of the key points. "If in this life only we have hope in Christ we are of all men most pitiable" (I Corinthians 15:19) There may be other points, but these are the places where I've been challlenged personally.
And just to be thorough, no offense taken.
Sorry, I couldn't resist....
There's a shortage of perfect [vapourware] in this world. It would be a shame to ruin [theirs].
Yes, most of the ideas are bizarre in the extreme. However, the handset that's designed to be used like a picture frame does make a certain amount of sense to me. Given the choice between talking to the back of my cellphone while it's in speakerphone mode and talking to a little pseudo picture-frame on my desk, I'll choose the latter.
Given that the BBC's intended audience is the Queen's Commonwealth, shouldn't it be Joe Sixpint?
He's doing Visa commercials.
You've forgotten Albertus Gorus, the "12th-Level" Vice President.