Well Aibo had actually a very good marketing scheme: universities all around the world were (and still are) competing in the RoboCup. In which much good research is being made.
Sony Sponsored the RoboCup and made a RoboCup Aibo league. Which meant that al lot of universities were buying these things aswell. And by doing so Sony got free research, free advertising and quite a good name among scientists researching AI.
Ok well, there weren't much buyers, but the price was also quite high.
< insert profit gag >
create a product
overtake a prestegious competition
make your own league
get alot of universities to buy a lot of those Aibo's
get a good name and free research
Profit
See nothing mysterious. Well... ok killing of a money making machine... But then again if you expect the market to stagnate, since most universities have already bought those Aibots no point in keeping the productionline around.
If it isn't on the internet it doesn't mean it doesn't exist (the other way around goes just the same) If it isn't googleable doesn't mean it isn't on the internet, nor does it mean it isn't out there in the real world. Although it would be a bit unrealistic for a whitehouse spokesperson to say such a thing. But then again, the US government, I believe it was a couple of years ago, that suggested that the pentagon should create an office for misinformation/propaganda. Of course there is nothing to find on that, too, but that could be that they are doing their job properly.
That somebody has a responsibility aswell. Although I'm not sure about the precise formulation of the law. (It could state the usage of the tool or something like that.) The law isn't black or white, it's something in between.
There are a couple of things here which are reasons to delegate that responsibility: this person takes a tool from me, without permission, which is theft. By that wrong doing, you could sue that person, for you're damages, of his actions. That somebody is also responsible for the correct usage of the tool, (correct usage doesn't include bashing the head of my neighbour) You cannot reasonably forsee that leaving out a hammer will result in a bashing of the head of your neighbour.
You can reasonbly forsee that if you do not secure your pc properly, chances are that you're pc is turned into a zombie. You ought to have taken (at least some) actions to prevent this kind of thing of happening.
Never the less, people are responsible for their own tools, if someone was able of putting it on your computer, it can be said that you still are responsible for letting this guy doing that, therefor directly responsible for those file transfers.
So it wouldn't matter who put it there. It's your pc, you should have made it impossible to do such a thing.
Not that I agree with it, but justice is sometimes a bit more strict than I think should be just.
problem is you can't use the internet as second external source, the probability is such that it is quite possible that that source is based on wikipedia, or the other way around, or based on the same source which may be false.
There was some news coverage of it here in the Netherlands. But I do think it was due to the lack of any other news. The average John Sixpack isn't going to notice it, not before it's too late.
Reminds me of The Truth (Discworld), what people are interested in isn't what interesting to the public. The newspapers are getting more and more to write what the people are interested in, not so much what's good for the public.
Well here in Europe, the European Council (or Commission, not that sure but doesn't really matter) are going towards exactly the opposite: more databases, and privacy laws are getting undermined
(thanks, Blair, Balkenende et al. we do appreciate your concerns for the public. Thanks, but no thanks.)
I see commercials with companies showing someone riding a bus playing a game on their laptop, and I just can't see that happening.
I don't see them either, but that's probably due to natural selection, for those who try probably their laptop gets nicked before long. (Those who don't try get a better chance of maintaining ownership)
On the other side of the story is, that if you get a program X to create document Y, the following situation can arise:
If X creates patended documents that is, then you're at te mercy of the sofwaremaker to allow free readers/executers for ducuments Y. But that will cost the company money, therefor not keeping their stockholders happy.
You're subscription to X runs out.
Therefor disabling you the use of Y, which is your own. Is that fair?
If taking about cars, you get a choice: upgrade or stick with the old version. In software this is less and less so: you'll need to upgrade, for otherwise some scriptkiddie (haven't seen that word aroud for a while) comes along, and might take over your pc. Or just do a hdd-format, or create you into a spamzombie. Not to mention that here you get the manufacturer who is the one telling you how long you are allowed use the product. Usually a product is garenteed to work for some time, after the product might fail, but with subscriptions, you're garanteed it will stop working.
I really think it depends on the application, wether or not a subscription version of software is ethically justified. Not to mention the price of a subscription relative to purchase of the software.
Well... since you are looking for info, and considering you want that info bad enough to continue searching if wikipedia fails, why not let the public marvel at your generosity of spending your valuable time and your intellect for finding the info elsewhere.
In that case it sould be obvious that you do have the password, so no problems there, it's your password.
it' just handy, if you don't want to enter your password everytime you want to make a call. It's more safe than now, where everyone I know is running his cell phone at the most secure level of only ask for a password when turning on their mobile.
Tnx, I did look for it, just couldn't find it. I also thought it was necessary for XHTML, but I do think it is a bit redundant, due to the fact that by the definition a LI element needs to be enclosed by or its parent's (UL or OL) or a next element.
for example: UL
LI other xhtml/LI
some other tag/some other tag
LI other xhtml/LI /UL
is infact an illegal XHTML statement, thus every LI-element is followed by either LI-element or (/UL |/OL)
ok XHTML isn't completely XML compliant if you define it that way. But that's just a small price to pay.
And therefor it is, I think just unnecessary code, just as easily parsable, unless of course you can redefine a list in XHTML, but I don't think that's allowed. it's just more to write if you write it by hand. For generated files it probably will be just as easy.
both state (though in example): that LI elements do not need to be terminated.
So it is not the wrong rendering, it valid HTML.
I don't know about XHTML (couldn't look it up so quickly) but going on the basics, it looks as though it is not necessary there either, since the only elements a UL or OL can have are LI elements. Therefor, if another LI at the same level start it is unambigiously that it is also the end of the privious one.
But if you go by the definition of XML then yes, it should not be omitted, but HTML is not XML.
But don't blame a browser for a buggy definition. You can Blame IE for having nonstandard tags, and allowing for example <b>some text<i>some more text</b>and then something else</i>
My mistake, we do have one in the Netherlands as well, damn... (ah well... History wasn't my favorite class anyway)
I thought it was a bit peculiar, such small a village, but then again we do have something like an old fortress there... (Kamp Waterloo)
http://www.lokatienet.nl/ => plaats "waterloo" => image link with "Toon kaart"...
well actually... I meant the original, you know, where Napoleon actually met his Waterloo, the famous battle of Waterloo he lost. (A very small Dutch village, and a little fortress)
(I didn't know you guys in the US called your cities after really small villages...)
Slashdot Mirror
Sony Sponsored the RoboCup and made a RoboCup Aibo league. Which meant that al lot of universities were buying these things aswell. And by doing so Sony got free research, free advertising and quite a good name among scientists researching AI.
Ok well, there weren't much buyers, but the price was also quite high.
< insert profit gag >
See nothing mysterious. Well... ok killing of a money making machine...
But then again if you expect the market to stagnate, since most universities have already bought those Aibots no point in keeping the productionline around.
If it isn't on the internet it doesn't mean it doesn't exist (the other way around goes just the same)
If it isn't googleable doesn't mean it isn't on the internet, nor does it mean it isn't out there in the real world. Although it would be a bit unrealistic for a whitehouse spokesperson to say such a thing. But then again, the US government, I believe it was a couple of years ago, that suggested that the pentagon should create an office for misinformation/propaganda. Of course there is nothing to find on that, too, but that could be that they are doing their job properly.
"Hello world"
Curiosity killed the app.
That somebody has a responsibility aswell. Although I'm not sure about the precise formulation of the law. (It could state the usage of the tool or something like that.) The law isn't black or white, it's something in between.
There are a couple of things here which are reasons to delegate that responsibility: this person takes a tool from me, without permission, which is theft. By that wrong doing, you could sue that person, for you're damages, of his actions.
That somebody is also responsible for the correct usage of the tool, (correct usage doesn't include bashing the head of my neighbour)
You cannot reasonably forsee that leaving out a hammer will result in a bashing of the head of your neighbour.
You can reasonbly forsee that if you do not secure your pc properly, chances are that you're pc is turned into a zombie. You ought to have taken (at least some) actions to prevent this kind of thing of happening.
Never the less, people are responsible for their own tools, if someone was able of putting it on your computer, it can be said that you still are responsible for letting this guy doing that, therefor directly responsible for those file transfers.
So it wouldn't matter who put it there. It's your pc, you should have made it impossible to do such a thing.
Not that I agree with it, but justice is sometimes a bit more strict than I think should be just.
It seems to me that you're missing a point, it's not about the percentage, it's about leaving out a lot of people.
problem is you can't use the internet as second external source, the probability is such that it is quite possible that that source is based on wikipedia, or the other way around, or based on the same source which may be false.
There was some news coverage of it here in the Netherlands. But I do think it was due to the lack of any other news. The average John Sixpack isn't going to notice it, not before it's too late.
Reminds me of The Truth (Discworld), what people are interested in isn't what interesting to the public. The newspapers are getting more and more to write what the people are interested in, not so much what's good for the public.
shield up is also a good website to check your security
We need less databases, and more privacy laws.
Well here in Europe, the European Council (or Commission, not that sure but doesn't really matter) are going towards exactly the opposite: more databases, and privacy laws are getting undermined
(thanks, Blair, Balkenende et al. we do appreciate your concerns for the public. Thanks, but no thanks.)
I see commercials with companies showing someone riding a bus playing a game on their laptop, and I just can't see that happening.
I don't see them either, but that's probably due to natural selection, for those who try probably their laptop gets nicked before long.
(Those who don't try get a better chance of maintaining ownership)
just like the Phantom of the Opera
Perhaps a bit besides the point, but technically speaking it took you a bit more words than 3. WMD are 4 words, right?
Are the Canadians that efficient?
People like olds.
The webserver(s) will fail.
/. effect
The
ever tried to read a unix saved textfile with notepad? (One with lots of \n characters that is ;) )
Oh wait it's a MS product...
On the other side of the story is, that if you get a program X to create document Y, the following situation can arise:
If X creates patended documents that is, then you're at te mercy of the sofwaremaker to allow free readers/executers for ducuments Y. But that will cost the company money, therefor not keeping their stockholders happy.
You're subscription to X runs out.
Therefor disabling you the use of Y, which is your own. Is that fair?
If taking about cars, you get a choice: upgrade or stick with the old version.
In software this is less and less so: you'll need to upgrade, for otherwise some scriptkiddie (haven't seen that word aroud for a while) comes along, and might take over your pc. Or just do a hdd-format, or create you into a spamzombie. Not to mention that here you get the manufacturer who is the one telling you how long you are allowed use the product. Usually a product is garenteed to work for some time, after the product might fail, but with subscriptions, you're garanteed it will stop working.
I really think it depends on the application, wether or not a subscription version of software is ethically justified. Not to mention the price of a subscription relative to purchase of the software.
Well... since you are looking for info, and considering you want that info bad enough to continue searching if wikipedia fails, why not let the public marvel at your generosity of spending your valuable time and your intellect for finding the info elsewhere.
That's how the wikipedia works, I think.;)
In that case it sould be obvious that you do have the password, so no problems there, it's your password.
it' just handy, if you don't want to enter your password everytime you want to make a call. It's more safe than now, where everyone I know is running his cell phone at the most secure level of only ask for a password when turning on their mobile.
Tnx, I did look for it, just couldn't find it.
/LI /some other tag /LI
/UL
/OL)
I also thought it was necessary for XHTML, but I do think it is a bit redundant, due to the fact that by the definition a LI element needs to be enclosed by or its parent's (UL or OL) or a next element.
for example:
UL
LI other xhtml
some other tag
LI other xhtml
is infact an illegal XHTML statement, thus every LI-element is followed by either LI-element or (/UL |
ok XHTML isn't completely XML compliant if you define it that way. But that's just a small price to pay.
And therefor it is, I think just unnecessary code, just as easily parsable, unless of course you can redefine a list in XHTML, but I don't think that's allowed.
it's just more to write if you write it by hand. For generated files it probably will be just as easy.
from the w3.org :u ct/lists.html
html 3.2 standard: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html32#dtd
html 4.0 standard: http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-html40-19980424/str
both state (though in example): that LI elements do not need to be terminated.
So it is not the wrong rendering, it valid HTML.
I don't know about XHTML (couldn't look it up so quickly) but going on the basics, it looks as though it is not necessary there either, since the only elements a UL or OL can have are LI elements. Therefor, if another LI at the same level start it is unambigiously that it is also the end of the privious one.
But if you go by the definition of XML then yes, it should not be omitted, but HTML is not XML.
But don't blame a browser for a buggy definition. You can Blame IE for having nonstandard tags, and allowing for example <b>some text<i>some more text</b>and then something else</i>
My mistake, we do have one in the Netherlands as well, damn... (ah well... History wasn't my favorite class anyway)
I thought it was a bit peculiar, such small a village, but then again we do have something like an old fortress there... (Kamp Waterloo)
http://www.lokatienet.nl/ => plaats "waterloo" => image link with "Toon kaart"...
well actually... I meant the original, you know, where Napoleon actually met his Waterloo, the famous battle of Waterloo he lost. (A very small Dutch village, and a little fortress)
(I didn't know you guys in the US called your cities after really small villages...)