This project took a year of research and number crunching (and procrastination) according to the author, but it's a nice visual layout of government spending in the US.
Our AMC theatre (the AMC 30 in Olathe, KS) has an open food policy, you don't need to smuggle anything in. Rumor has it that a someone with strict dietary restrictions (religious, diabetic, I'm not sure) threatened to sue because of the limited concession offerrings, and the theatre buckled.
We abuse the policy all the time, bringing in large meals (especially chinese takeout).
I'll be taking a huge karmic hit here, but... I have a strong distrust of privacy rights.
I've played games of chance, and I've played games of perfect information, like Chess and Go.
Maybe it's just because I can't bluff, but it always seemed to me that games of perfect information were fairer.
When I buy a car, I want to know if it's a lemon. When I vote for a candidate, I want to know their voting history. When I use a piece of software, I want to know how it works.
When I go outside, certainly I'd prefer no one knew where I was or what I was doing, but I believe ethics are meaningless unless they are universalizable. There's no reason I should be able to hide details about myself while the used car dealer cannot.
As someone who is innately curious about the world, I embrace disclosure and transparency. I just as much prefer everything to be out in the open.
1) Cory Doctorow showed that selling a tangible book isn't incompatible with releasing it online and opening it to modifications. Books don't need to be closed to let people make a living.
2) Many individuals are working on free support. Those that desparately need to feed their families are probably better off getting a day job. We don't need closed books to get the information out.
3) I'm not against people for wanting to sell something they've made. But the Ubuntu philosophy is about contributing free resources to the community. If you aren't into the philosophy, that's fine, but trying to profit off something you don't believe in is kinda disgusting.
Thomas should respect the principles of Ubuntu and release this book for free and license it under Creative Commons to allow mashups and external improvements so the book can become more helpful over time.
I don't see the grammatical error in the bolded text. There is a comma splice, though.
Remember: if the two phrases sound good alone, use a period or a semicolon!
--
Maybe this extension could let me see the original summary when replying to a comment. On rare occassions, I decide I should actually check the summary, or even the article itself, before hitting "Submit."
Now, in hindsight, that looks like a really stupid agreement for Apple Computers to make. But at the time, it was probably a) costly litigation vs. b) reassuring the Beatles (who are way more popular than you, probably more sympathetic to a jury, if there is one) that you're not going to start selling records, something you have absolutely no intention of doing anyway.
So yeah, the TM claim seems ridiculous. But that's not really what this is about. The K claim seems pretty cut and dry for Apple Corps.
Until it's all settled, just have to stick with allofmp3.com.
the source spoke to me on condition of anonymity. The source is someone who works in retail tech, and knows whereof he / she speaks.
The point is that people are so afraid of the ramifications of giving quotes like this that they won't speak except on condition of anonymity.
"There is nothing more toxic to responsible journalism than an anonymous source." -Daniel Okrent
In addition to his snappy quotes, Okrent makes some good points in that article, I highly recommmend it.
Then, how about a follow up piece uncovering specific punitive actions Microsoft has taken against various retailers? It'd make a great piece of investigative journalism.
First, I think a teacher has every right to completely control her classroom environment. But I think she's exercising poor judgment here.
Bad note taking habits have nothing to do with the tools you use. Some students take too many notes with paper. Some take too few on a laptop. She's essentially saying that good note taking habits cannot be taught; that sort of defeatism doesn't make her sound like that great of a teacher to me.
Besides, I think she'll be amazed when some of her students manage to avoid thinking about the material even without the assistance of modern gadgetry.
Why is there a moral distinction between automating a redundant procedure with obvious technology and automating a redundant procedure with muscle memory?
It's like Harrison Bergeron: you can be good at the game if you have quick hands, but if you're merely clever, we're going to shackle you.
Besides, if games don't want macroing, there's a simple solution. They should excise the boring and repetitive parts from their games. WoW did this for the most part, it trimmed a lot of the meaningless fat from the typical MMORPGs, its playability lead primarily to its success.
If the automated parts of the game were fulfilling in themselves, no one would automate them. If people are automating them, then they're making the game better. These people should be Blizz's best friends, Blizz should take notes from them.
The law includes in its definition of damage "destruction of data." The law forbids the "transmission of a program" that will cause such damage. Since he installed the secure deletion program, he pretty clearly transmitted it to the machine.
Judicial decisions are grounded in laws passed to them by zealous temporary legislatures. It's unsurprising that these rulings work just like everything else: garbage in, garbage out.
(I think Posner & Co. grossly misinterpreted the contract, but the lower court might be free to reconsider that issue on remand anyway. I think the major ridiculousness here comes from hasty lawmaking.)
Calcasieu: A river you've never seen in Louisiana.
Most of these words have French origins. So, sadly, the French will benefit the most from domain name punning. Maybe phonetics would be better for us anglophiles:
theproudandthef.eu wattsamatta.eu p.eu
Other ideas? We must not lose an inch in the interlingual contest for stupidest web naming memes!
Many commenters are pushing Open Source discussions as completely reliant upon faith (here, here, here).
I think that's a strong mischaracterization of these discussions.
As much as you might disagree with them, closed source proponents, and differring open source proponents, believe what they do for reasons.
Sometimes the reasons seem ill-informed or heady, but it's a complex and nuanced discussion. Maybe they don't understand your position, or maybe you don't fully understand theirs. It's unlikely people have come to these positions as a matter of principle, in defiance of all reason to the contrary.
For more information, consider Davidson's Principle of Charity, something all/.ers (myself definitely included) ought to consider before posting.
If you want to stop anti-competitive practices, digital distribution needs to adopt the rules of radio:
Download services should have the right to sell any digital recording now, and compensate artists afterwards. There should be nothing "exlusively on iTunes" (or eMusic for that matter).
Opening competition prevents unfair business practices (to some extent, anyway, worth a shot!).
This is just an optional feature no one will use, not a tax.
a) Free mail will still get through to AOL users. b) AOL users can still whitelist and blacklist senders, even certified senders.
So certified mail allows senders to pay for what privilege, again?
There's nothing to buy, there's no added value, this program will be DOA.
But it's just a stupid business idea, AOL doesn't have any authority to challenge the sanctity of email, no matter what some critics would have you believe.
Slashdot Mirror
This project took a year of research and number crunching (and procrastination) according to the author, but it's a nice visual layout of government spending in the US.
The project page.
Our AMC theatre (the AMC 30 in Olathe, KS) has an open food policy, you don't need to smuggle anything in. Rumor has it that a someone with strict dietary restrictions (religious, diabetic, I'm not sure) threatened to sue because of the limited concession offerrings, and the theatre buckled.
We abuse the policy all the time, bringing in large meals (especially chinese takeout).
One day, we will roast a pig in there.
Zoom in here.
I'll be taking a huge karmic hit here, but... I have a strong distrust of privacy rights.
I've played games of chance, and I've played games of perfect information, like Chess and Go.
Maybe it's just because I can't bluff, but it always seemed to me that games of perfect information were fairer.
When I buy a car, I want to know if it's a lemon. When I vote for a candidate, I want to know their voting history. When I use a piece of software, I want to know how it works.
When I go outside, certainly I'd prefer no one knew where I was or what I was doing, but I believe ethics are meaningless unless they are universalizable. There's no reason I should be able to hide details about myself while the used car dealer cannot.
As someone who is innately curious about the world, I embrace disclosure and transparency. I just as much prefer everything to be out in the open.
1) Cory Doctorow showed that selling a tangible book isn't incompatible with releasing it online and opening it to modifications. Books don't need to be closed to let people make a living.
2) Many individuals are working on free support. Those that desparately need to feed their families are probably better off getting a day job. We don't need closed books to get the information out.
3) I'm not against people for wanting to sell something they've made. But the Ubuntu philosophy is about contributing free resources to the community. If you aren't into the philosophy, that's fine, but trying to profit off something you don't believe in is kinda disgusting.
a) They pay royalties to ROMS.
b) Labeling law abiding Russians mafiosos is equivalent to labeling peaceful Arabs terrorists. It cheapens the discussion rather than elevating it.
Key to Ubuntu's philosophy is making "the tools you need available free of charge"
Thomas should respect the principles of Ubuntu and release this book for free and license it under Creative Commons to allow mashups and external improvements so the book can become more helpful over time.
I don't see the grammatical error in the bolded text. There is a comma splice, though.
Remember: if the two phrases sound good alone, use a period or a semicolon!
--
Maybe this extension could let me see the original summary when replying to a comment. On rare occassions, I decide I should actually check the summary, or even the article itself, before hitting "Submit."
(Or is this already an option somewhere?)
Language is digital...
I disagree. I think language is just mostly digital.
Apple Computers signed a settlement agreement a few decades back promising they would never use the name Apple in the music industry.
Now, in hindsight, that looks like a really stupid agreement for Apple Computers to make. But at the time, it was probably a) costly litigation vs. b) reassuring the Beatles (who are way more popular than you, probably more sympathetic to a jury, if there is one) that you're not going to start selling records, something you have absolutely no intention of doing anyway.
So yeah, the TM claim seems ridiculous. But that's not really what this is about. The K claim seems pretty cut and dry for Apple Corps.
Until it's all settled, just have to stick with allofmp3.com.
Is this battle why the Beatles' catalog isn't for sale in iTunes?
Though I guess they aren't available in many other music services, either...
I guess that's why Russia has obligatory licensing.
the source spoke to me on condition of anonymity. The source is someone who works in retail tech, and knows whereof he / she speaks.
The point is that people are so afraid of the ramifications of giving quotes like this that they won't speak except on condition of anonymity.
"There is nothing more toxic to responsible journalism than an anonymous source." -Daniel Okrent
In addition to his snappy quotes, Okrent makes some good points in that article, I highly recommmend it.
Then, how about a follow up piece uncovering specific punitive actions Microsoft has taken against various retailers? It'd make a great piece of investigative journalism.
First, I think a teacher has every right to completely control her classroom environment. But I think she's exercising poor judgment here.
Bad note taking habits have nothing to do with the tools you use. Some students take too many notes with paper. Some take too few on a laptop. She's essentially saying that good note taking habits cannot be taught; that sort of defeatism doesn't make her sound like that great of a teacher to me.
Besides, I think she'll be amazed when some of her students manage to avoid thinking about the material even without the assistance of modern gadgetry.
Are there good open source projects that buck this trend, that disprove the thesis of this article?
This is the crowd that would know.
Or in the alternative, is "strong central leadership" so inherent to all human endeavors that the thesis is a meaningless tautology?
Apologies to anyone who doesn't just have CNet on their Google Homepage:
http://blog.wired.com/cultofmac/
Yay, attribution!
Such orders are subject to judicial scrutiny and legislative reform, if there's a problem with privacy, it's not with the app, it's with your govt.
Why is there a moral distinction between automating a redundant procedure with obvious technology and automating a redundant procedure with muscle memory?
It's like Harrison Bergeron: you can be good at the game if you have quick hands, but if you're merely clever, we're going to shackle you.
Besides, if games don't want macroing, there's a simple solution. They should excise the boring and repetitive parts from their games. WoW did this for the most part, it trimmed a lot of the meaningless fat from the typical MMORPGs, its playability lead primarily to its success.
If the automated parts of the game were fulfilling in themselves, no one would automate them. If people are automating them, then they're making the game better. These people should be Blizz's best friends, Blizz should take notes from them.
The idea is to get a settlement. But without the threat of injunction hanging over everybody's heads, parties can often be reluctant to deal.
I thought the article was about some new DRM from Microsoft.
This interpretation fits squarely with the law.
The law includes in its definition of damage "destruction of data." The law forbids the "transmission of a program" that will cause such damage. Since he installed the secure deletion program, he pretty clearly transmitted it to the machine.
Judicial decisions are grounded in laws passed to them by zealous temporary legislatures. It's unsurprising that these rulings work just like everything else: garbage in, garbage out.
(I think Posner & Co. grossly misinterpreted the contract, but the lower court might be free to reconsider that issue on remand anyway. I think the major ridiculousness here comes from hasty lawmaking.)
Boutefeu: 177k google hits.
Calcasieu: A river you've never seen in Louisiana.
Most of these words have French origins. So, sadly, the French will benefit the most from domain name punning. Maybe phonetics would be better for us anglophiles:
theproudandthef.eu
wattsamatta.eu
p.eu
Other ideas? We must not lose an inch in the interlingual contest for stupidest web naming memes!
Many commenters are pushing Open Source discussions as completely reliant upon faith (here, here, here).
/.ers (myself definitely included) ought to consider before posting.
I think that's a strong mischaracterization of these discussions.
As much as you might disagree with them, closed source proponents, and differring open source proponents, believe what they do for reasons.
Sometimes the reasons seem ill-informed or heady, but it's a complex and nuanced discussion. Maybe they don't understand your position, or maybe you don't fully understand theirs. It's unlikely people have come to these positions as a matter of principle, in defiance of all reason to the contrary.
For more information, consider Davidson's Principle of Charity, something all
The users most susceptible to phishing are also the ones least likely to seek out and install an extension...
But the users most susceptible to phishing are also the ones least likely to seek out and install an alternative browser.
If you want to stop anti-competitive practices, digital distribution needs to adopt the rules of radio:
Download services should have the right to sell any digital recording now, and compensate artists afterwards. There should be nothing "exlusively on iTunes" (or eMusic for that matter).
Opening competition prevents unfair business practices (to some extent, anyway, worth a shot!).
This is just an optional feature no one will use, not a tax.
a) Free mail will still get through to AOL users.
b) AOL users can still whitelist and blacklist senders, even certified senders.
So certified mail allows senders to pay for what privilege, again?
There's nothing to buy, there's no added value, this program will be DOA.
But it's just a stupid business idea, AOL doesn't have any authority to challenge the sanctity of email, no matter what some critics would have you believe.