I think it makes sense. You have something oscillating between states 0 and 1 like a teeter totter with evenly weighted people on either side. The act of measuring the state is like introducing a weighted ball to the fulcrum point. Which ever side of the teeter totter is closest to the ground will have the weighted ball roll towards it thus fixing the teeter totter in that state.
By default it hasn't even been a "feature" in web browsers. The behavior resulting from the flag isn't dependent upon the browser it's dependent upon the content provider. What I'm getting at is that content providers have to write a "feature" of their own to even pay attention to the flag. A feature I'm quite certain every content provider will implement and abide by. This flag is nothing more than window dressing to allay the concerns of end-users that don't know any better while allowing Microsoft to look good because they "care" about privacy.
If Microsoft by default bundled AdBlock with IE and defaulted to having it turned on this would be a more relevant discussion. Either way, if customers want to be tracked, cataloged, mugged and marketed to, they have options. If this "feature" is so detrimental to users, then users will turn it off or use another browser.
I agree. Of all the evils, T-Mobile is the least. If you aren't planning on going out into deep rural areas T-Mobile should always treat you right. That said, why the hell would you want to leave South Korea for the crap communication we have State side?
While plentiful in those areas where our CIA (thank you), China, the Russians, etc. supplied para-military groups for the sake of national agendas and/or profits that is true. However, within the borders of the U.S. there are impediments that make printing arms a more "interesting" alternative. Either way, this is image management for Stratasys pure and simple. Regardless of legality, regardless of logic, this is a pretty serious public relations/political policy landmine that they do not want to step on. Businesses may be able to maneuver policy on grounds of IP infringement with time and a good deal of investment but it's hard compared to a mass group panicking lemmings racing to protect their children from these dangerous gun printing machines.
They aren't a part of society if they are not integrated into it. They are isolationists and should not disproportionately influence a society they chose not to be members of.
It isn't illicit. A manufacture's license is only required if you "sell" your product. The only problem would have been if the gun was illegal in that jurisdiction in the first place. Since Cody is a student of law in Texas. So, since it's Texas there's almost certainly no legal issue here and since he's a law student he'd stand a pretty good chance of knowing one way or another anyway. This has nothing to do with illegality and everything to do with Stratasys being fearful of getting a bad reputation as an enabler of terrorist groups and crazies.
Not going to be easy? It won't happen. Period. Too much money has already exchanged hands. Any solution to this nightmare will by necessity have to enable companies to retain the invested value of their patent portfolio and licensing while being universally applied to all jurisdictions around the world. It is the equivalent of de-weaponizing every nation-state, every NGO. In other words it's a pipe dream. Politicians could have nipped this in the bud maybe twenty years ago but now they are simply impotent and couldn't fix this even if they actually had the will to do so. There is no end but that of blood and fire.
Instead of giving into FUD perhaps you should educate yourself. First (in the US at least), there is no "ban," it is a efficiency requirement that traditional incandescent bulbs do not fit. However, there are high-efficiency incandescents that DO fit that requirement. Further, it is an efficiency requirement for "common application" not for special purpose. This isn't a ban on heat lamps, nor special application like task lighting, appliances, etc.. Are you going to get away with paying $0.99 on a 4-pack of 60W bulbs in the future? No, because manufacturing is switching their capacity over to CFL and LED. Will you still be able to get a 4-pack of 60W bulbs or a comparable alternative? Yes, of course.
There are reasons why certain Islamists take to the actions they do when morons purposefully insult their beliefs. In short summary, it's because there are no few functional alternatives (such as a legal framework) through which they might get redress. Should they grow thicker skins and not validate the morons in the first place. Probably. But these insults in their mind are the equivalent of someone dehumanizing your wife by raping and defecating on her then later posting a video of it for all the world to see. What would you do if you could not pursue legal remedy?
It is the same story for all forms of advertisement. You have three groups of people, A (the sellers), B (the marketers), and C (the consumers). Group A wants to sell to group C, group B is really just another group A in disguise because they think of group A as C. Group C generally ignores group B because B has nothing to do with A. Group C however will usually listen to A if A has something C wants to buy. Group A thinks they needs group B to tell group C to buy their product because group B promises to sell group A to C and since group B is a group A to the other group A and A is a group C in this case group A will listen to group B. What group A doesn't realize is that group B is ignored by group C because group C only listens to group A.
The essentials that enable their habitation of said basement. i.e. Cheetos, pizza, energy drinks, microwaves, refrigerators, delivery services, computer hardware, software, pacification gifts for mom, etc.
That's not the fault of available technology. In most metro areas that I've been in every taxi cab is capable of conducting live credit transactions. The only requirement to enable such things is a cellular link which should of course be universally available within the area in which public transportation operates.
Why on earth would anyone store the balance on the card you give to customers? Isn't that kind of an open invitation to exploitation not to mention customer service headaches from people losing/damaging their cards?
Slashdot Mirror
I think it makes sense. You have something oscillating between states 0 and 1 like a teeter totter with evenly weighted people on either side. The act of measuring the state is like introducing a weighted ball to the fulcrum point. Which ever side of the teeter totter is closest to the ground will have the weighted ball roll towards it thus fixing the teeter totter in that state.
By default it hasn't even been a "feature" in web browsers. The behavior resulting from the flag isn't dependent upon the browser it's dependent upon the content provider. What I'm getting at is that content providers have to write a "feature" of their own to even pay attention to the flag. A feature I'm quite certain every content provider will implement and abide by. This flag is nothing more than window dressing to allay the concerns of end-users that don't know any better while allowing Microsoft to look good because they "care" about privacy.
If Microsoft by default bundled AdBlock with IE and defaulted to having it turned on this would be a more relevant discussion. Either way, if customers want to be tracked, cataloged, mugged and marketed to, they have options. If this "feature" is so detrimental to users, then users will turn it off or use another browser.
I agree. Of all the evils, T-Mobile is the least. If you aren't planning on going out into deep rural areas T-Mobile should always treat you right. That said, why the hell would you want to leave South Korea for the crap communication we have State side?
Curse you for beating me to it...
While plentiful in those areas where our CIA (thank you), China, the Russians, etc. supplied para-military groups for the sake of national agendas and/or profits that is true. However, within the borders of the U.S. there are impediments that make printing arms a more "interesting" alternative. Either way, this is image management for Stratasys pure and simple. Regardless of legality, regardless of logic, this is a pretty serious public relations/political policy landmine that they do not want to step on. Businesses may be able to maneuver policy on grounds of IP infringement with time and a good deal of investment but it's hard compared to a mass group panicking lemmings racing to protect their children from these dangerous gun printing machines.
They aren't a part of society if they are not integrated into it. They are isolationists and should not disproportionately influence a society they chose not to be members of.
+1 Informative
It isn't illicit. A manufacture's license is only required if you "sell" your product. The only problem would have been if the gun was illegal in that jurisdiction in the first place. Since Cody is a student of law in Texas. So, since it's Texas there's almost certainly no legal issue here and since he's a law student he'd stand a pretty good chance of knowing one way or another anyway. This has nothing to do with illegality and everything to do with Stratasys being fearful of getting a bad reputation as an enabler of terrorist groups and crazies.
Not going to be easy? It won't happen. Period. Too much money has already exchanged hands. Any solution to this nightmare will by necessity have to enable companies to retain the invested value of their patent portfolio and licensing while being universally applied to all jurisdictions around the world. It is the equivalent of de-weaponizing every nation-state, every NGO. In other words it's a pipe dream. Politicians could have nipped this in the bud maybe twenty years ago but now they are simply impotent and couldn't fix this even if they actually had the will to do so. There is no end but that of blood and fire.
Storage devices are being developed and deployed on the grid as well so even in those case (solar, hydro, etc.) it's not really true.
The Watergate people had already retired.
Hey, people have unwittingly come close to starting global thermonuclear war. "Honest your honor I thought it was a game!"
-1 Jackass
Instead of giving into FUD perhaps you should educate yourself. First (in the US at least), there is no "ban," it is a efficiency requirement that traditional incandescent bulbs do not fit. However, there are high-efficiency incandescents that DO fit that requirement. Further, it is an efficiency requirement for "common application" not for special purpose. This isn't a ban on heat lamps, nor special application like task lighting, appliances, etc.. Are you going to get away with paying $0.99 on a 4-pack of 60W bulbs in the future? No, because manufacturing is switching their capacity over to CFL and LED. Will you still be able to get a 4-pack of 60W bulbs or a comparable alternative? Yes, of course.
If the US were a technocracy we wouldn't be in the same mess today.
There are reasons why certain Islamists take to the actions they do when morons purposefully insult their beliefs. In short summary, it's because there are no few functional alternatives (such as a legal framework) through which they might get redress. Should they grow thicker skins and not validate the morons in the first place. Probably. But these insults in their mind are the equivalent of someone dehumanizing your wife by raping and defecating on her then later posting a video of it for all the world to see. What would you do if you could not pursue legal remedy?
GP's probably American cut him some slack. At least he got the hemisphere right...
Shame I cannot recover mine (forgot password, old ISP with defunct email), it wasn't quite as low as 109 but still a badge of pride to have.
Tax returns are not required for republicans.
When did farmers start paying attention to laws relating to minors?
It is the same story for all forms of advertisement. You have three groups of people, A (the sellers), B (the marketers), and C (the consumers). Group A wants to sell to group C, group B is really just another group A in disguise because they think of group A as C. Group C generally ignores group B because B has nothing to do with A. Group C however will usually listen to A if A has something C wants to buy. Group A thinks they needs group B to tell group C to buy their product because group B promises to sell group A to C and since group B is a group A to the other group A and A is a group C in this case group A will listen to group B. What group A doesn't realize is that group B is ignored by group C because group C only listens to group A.
The essentials that enable their habitation of said basement. i.e. Cheetos, pizza, energy drinks, microwaves, refrigerators, delivery services, computer hardware, software, pacification gifts for mom, etc.
Don't be silly. There's money to be made. This site is a pre-sorted demographic pool for advertisement exploitation. *rolls eyes*
That's not the fault of available technology. In most metro areas that I've been in every taxi cab is capable of conducting live credit transactions. The only requirement to enable such things is a cellular link which should of course be universally available within the area in which public transportation operates.
Why on earth would anyone store the balance on the card you give to customers? Isn't that kind of an open invitation to exploitation not to mention customer service headaches from people losing/damaging their cards?