Hackers and Antitrust pissed me off a bit. But for some reason War Games was amusing and engaging. I suppose in some cases it really doesn't matter. What bothers me more than anything though I think is how the mass audiences swallow it as if that were how things really are. Even worse when people try to make conversation with you and you're forced to either grin and nod or explain to them that that's not how things really work without rolling your eyes and calling them a moron.
It doesn't really matter. The number of events required to map a behavior pattern to a person's identity is trivially small. Humans require photo/video to identify, algorithms require far, far less.
It's more an issue of perspective than anything. It doesn't "make" you overweight, what you eat makes you overweight. You are simply not doing yourself any favors if you chose to sit on your larded butt all day. Your body requires exercise to function properly. Part of which includes promoting a satisfactory metabolic rate. If your ass sitting is fostering a low metabolic rate, then the food you eat--which people tend to do more of when they ass sit by the way--is going to inflate said ass even faster than it would otherwise. In other words, when viewed from afar there isn't much point in the distinction. Whether it's making you fat or making it easier to be fat, there isn't much difference.
Is it just that I'm tired from a long day at work, or is the summary really that incoherent, disorganized and lacking even a rudimentary grasp of proper sentence structure? I hate to be one of those "Nazis" but I shouldn't have to read and re-read the bloody summary to tease meaning out of it.
Trademarks are a form of intellectual property that serves branding. A company may use their trademark to prevent anyone from using their branding in their own products without consent through licensing. Think franchises, or all the random crap that has Disney movie themes or Hello Kitty all over them.
Patents are a form of intellectual property that serves "inventions". A company may use their patent to prevent anyone from using the patented "invention" in their own products without consent through licensing.
At the end of the day a company may leverage IP law to exclude/regulate access to their IP. Certain people are making the false assumption that my explanation means that I'm against laws that prevent anyone from doing as they will with another's IP. I do however believe that IP laws should serve the public interest ahead of private parties. They are not.
While there are technical differences, in a more abstract sense they're all gatekeepers whose purpose is to funnel money to the possessor by exclusion and/or toll taking. While patents do expire, they are anything but "very" time-limited except in relation to their IP cousins. By the time a patent has expired, the so-called "invention" is often obsolete. In the mean time everything that would have benefited from it's implementation is either sub-optimal for having avoided or more expensive for having licensed.
If I cannot trademark anything and everything that floats to mind, for shits and giggles, why then can I patent whatever floats to mind for shits and giggles? Are lawyers dealing with trademarks less greedy than patent attorneys such that they didn't instruct their lobby to get their own pro "shits and giggles" legislation passed?
Open-ended gaming has open-ended playability. Linear progression games, have a definite ending and a limited re-playability factor. There's only so many times you will want to complete the same maps, run the same quests, kill the same bosses. You will inevitably be driven to purchase new games to solve your boredom. Buying new games is good... Replaying old ones bad.
By year is probably the most efficient way to filter. I would however split the lot between Theory, Syntax, and Technology. The former will have far longer relevance and the latter will have the least with the passing of time. Theory can last for decades, but technology is constantly overturning and starts to become irrelevant even a couple years after print.
Habitable? I seem to recall substantial issues with food supply and a hostile environment both natural and otherwise. Settlers of the new world had engineering problems essential to survival that were necessary to overcome just as future off-worlders will have. They may take a different shape but they're still just engineering problems. The only difference between the two is perspective. We look at what new world settlers had to face from our vantage of modern technology and trivialize the obstacles they were facing that challenged their survival. The reality for them however was very grim; starvation, disease, and skirmishes with the natives saw half of the settlers dead within the first year. From the vantage of modern technology our new world(s) present a struggle for survival on par with those of Jamestown. But with perseverance, we will not only survive, but conquer and thrive just as they did.
Why did anyone bother with the New World? They had a perfectly reasonable Europe. You may like your Mom's basement, but you surely do not speak for everyone.
There's an unfortunate problem with this historical trend. Human capability. The assumption is that robots will free humans to perform more sophisticated tasks. These tasks however require not only education/training the but mental faculties to perform. The workers being replaced are in those positions usually not because they wanted to be but because of limitations in either the former, the latter or both. If a worker is incapable of performing a tasks of a certain level of sophistication it really doesn't matter if they're "free to do so."
I couldn't tell you where the link points as Microsoft appears to be playing toddler games with Google again. I'm getting a screen cap of the Silverlight with the message "Sorry, Silverlight for your browser is not officially supported." Of course I have Silverlight for Chrome installed. Click on the link provided and am told:
The version of Silverlight installed is:
Silverlight 5 (5.1.20513.0)
You are ready to use Microsoft Silverlight
If you don't have ghosting and don't have light bleeding from the edges then there's really nothing on offer that would provide a compelling case for an upgrade. The "smart" part is normally solved by your much less expensive to upgrade Blu-ray player, 3D is pointless, and who the hell wants a hackable camera for NSA/GCHQ types to enjoy?
Citation require. If I cannot find an employee locally I will either ship the job offshore, or I'll import an employee. If an employee was available locally why would I go through the expense and hassle related to an H1-B?
Long before that was allowed to take place, the power brokers would manufacture new dependencies. Most likely though will be a simple cascade collapse of society and our robots stemming from a scarcity of resources. 6+ billion people cannot live the lifestyle of western civilization while being constrained to the resources of Earth.
The answer is really easy. You do not have a flagship product. You have a product meant to fit a hole in the low end of the market. Why pour large sums of money into polishing a turd? If you want a better experience but don't want to spend much money, go get a legacy Galaxy S{n} or equivalent flagship line from another vendor.
Slashdot Mirror
...calling it more insecure than company developed products.
Prove it. Lets see the source.
Hackers and Antitrust pissed me off a bit. But for some reason War Games was amusing and engaging. I suppose in some cases it really doesn't matter. What bothers me more than anything though I think is how the mass audiences swallow it as if that were how things really are. Even worse when people try to make conversation with you and you're forced to either grin and nod or explain to them that that's not how things really work without rolling your eyes and calling them a moron.
Even though they killed Mars Direct I'll be happy to donate to a fund to send them on a Sol Direct mission.
It doesn't really matter. The number of events required to map a behavior pattern to a person's identity is trivially small. Humans require photo/video to identify, algorithms require far, far less.
It's more an issue of perspective than anything. It doesn't "make" you overweight, what you eat makes you overweight. You are simply not doing yourself any favors if you chose to sit on your larded butt all day. Your body requires exercise to function properly. Part of which includes promoting a satisfactory metabolic rate. If your ass sitting is fostering a low metabolic rate, then the food you eat--which people tend to do more of when they ass sit by the way--is going to inflate said ass even faster than it would otherwise. In other words, when viewed from afar there isn't much point in the distinction. Whether it's making you fat or making it easier to be fat, there isn't much difference.
Is it just that I'm tired from a long day at work, or is the summary really that incoherent, disorganized and lacking even a rudimentary grasp of proper sentence structure? I hate to be one of those "Nazis" but I shouldn't have to read and re-read the bloody summary to tease meaning out of it.
Trademarks are a form of intellectual property that serves branding. A company may use their trademark to prevent anyone from using their branding in their own products without consent through licensing. Think franchises, or all the random crap that has Disney movie themes or Hello Kitty all over them.
Patents are a form of intellectual property that serves "inventions". A company may use their patent to prevent anyone from using the patented "invention" in their own products without consent through licensing.
At the end of the day a company may leverage IP law to exclude/regulate access to their IP. Certain people are making the false assumption that my explanation means that I'm against laws that prevent anyone from doing as they will with another's IP. I do however believe that IP laws should serve the public interest ahead of private parties. They are not.
While there are technical differences, in a more abstract sense they're all gatekeepers whose purpose is to funnel money to the possessor by exclusion and/or toll taking. While patents do expire, they are anything but "very" time-limited except in relation to their IP cousins. By the time a patent has expired, the so-called "invention" is often obsolete. In the mean time everything that would have benefited from it's implementation is either sub-optimal for having avoided or more expensive for having licensed.
If I cannot trademark anything and everything that floats to mind, for shits and giggles, why then can I patent whatever floats to mind for shits and giggles? Are lawyers dealing with trademarks less greedy than patent attorneys such that they didn't instruct their lobby to get their own pro "shits and giggles" legislation passed?
What happened to patent law then?
When was the last time anyone in the mainstream focused on "the story?"
The recipe usually goes something like:
There is no equivalent trademark on record at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Maybe that's because their office is closed.
What happens when you only have 1 Sun? Or, more importantly, a fractional Sun since we have this nifty thing called an atmosphere.
Open-ended gaming has open-ended playability. Linear progression games, have a definite ending and a limited re-playability factor. There's only so many times you will want to complete the same maps, run the same quests, kill the same bosses. You will inevitably be driven to purchase new games to solve your boredom. Buying new games is good... Replaying old ones bad.
By year is probably the most efficient way to filter. I would however split the lot between Theory, Syntax, and Technology. The former will have far longer relevance and the latter will have the least with the passing of time. Theory can last for decades, but technology is constantly overturning and starts to become irrelevant even a couple years after print.
Habitable? I seem to recall substantial issues with food supply and a hostile environment both natural and otherwise. Settlers of the new world had engineering problems essential to survival that were necessary to overcome just as future off-worlders will have. They may take a different shape but they're still just engineering problems. The only difference between the two is perspective. We look at what new world settlers had to face from our vantage of modern technology and trivialize the obstacles they were facing that challenged their survival. The reality for them however was very grim; starvation, disease, and skirmishes with the natives saw half of the settlers dead within the first year. From the vantage of modern technology our new world(s) present a struggle for survival on par with those of Jamestown. But with perseverance, we will not only survive, but conquer and thrive just as they did.
Why did anyone bother with the New World? They had a perfectly reasonable Europe. You may like your Mom's basement, but you surely do not speak for everyone.
There's an unfortunate problem with this historical trend. Human capability. The assumption is that robots will free humans to perform more sophisticated tasks. These tasks however require not only education/training the but mental faculties to perform. The workers being replaced are in those positions usually not because they wanted to be but because of limitations in either the former, the latter or both. If a worker is incapable of performing a tasks of a certain level of sophistication it really doesn't matter if they're "free to do so."
I couldn't tell you where the link points as Microsoft appears to be playing toddler games with Google again. I'm getting a screen cap of the Silverlight with the message "Sorry, Silverlight for your browser is not officially supported." Of course I have Silverlight for Chrome installed. Click on the link provided and am told:
The version of Silverlight installed is: Silverlight 5 (5.1.20513.0) You are ready to use Microsoft Silverlight
the draft is however very sparse on details
Don't worry the NSA and GCHQ will help fill in those details.
If you don't have ghosting and don't have light bleeding from the edges then there's really nothing on offer that would provide a compelling case for an upgrade. The "smart" part is normally solved by your much less expensive to upgrade Blu-ray player, 3D is pointless, and who the hell wants a hackable camera for NSA/GCHQ types to enjoy?
Citation require. If I cannot find an employee locally I will either ship the job offshore, or I'll import an employee. If an employee was available locally why would I go through the expense and hassle related to an H1-B?
Long before that was allowed to take place, the power brokers would manufacture new dependencies. Most likely though will be a simple cascade collapse of society and our robots stemming from a scarcity of resources. 6+ billion people cannot live the lifestyle of western civilization while being constrained to the resources of Earth.
Last century? No they had that then too.
The answer is really easy. You do not have a flagship product. You have a product meant to fit a hole in the low end of the market. Why pour large sums of money into polishing a turd? If you want a better experience but don't want to spend much money, go get a legacy Galaxy S{n} or equivalent flagship line from another vendor.