MS doesn't put their product in schools, not that I've seen. That was Apple's gig in the 80s, and it failed miserably. It took OSX to save the Mac, and Intel to make it mainstream.
Schools buy Microsoft products, just like everyone else. We get them at a discount, but we still pay about $150 for Vista (downgraded to XP as soon as we get it) and Office on every new PC.
Why not? Isn't that how most small-time inventors get noticed by big companies...either developing a new product or improving an existing one?
A couple of college student can't approach Hasbro and say "We've got a great idea for an online version of Scrabble...will you let us make it?" Hasbro will laugh them out the doors. But when they execute it well and have a massive fan base, why would Hasbro NOT want to cash in on what is already there and developed?
Hasbro would have done a lot better to do something like this:
"We'll give you an endorsement and let you use the Scrabble logo and *not take legal action* if you will maintain certain standards and give us a cut of your advertising profits as a licensing fee."
And then negotiate as fair a deal as both parties can agree upon.
This is where modern copyright litigation really fails these companies: they're so quick to shut down anyone who might potentially be stepping into their IP, they're passing up really amazing opportunities at making use of their innovation. If these guys can do Scrabble so well, why not encourage them to do other Hasbro games in a way that makes Hasbro money?
But...it's ART! How dare you question anything deemed art?
Forgive me. I am just tired of every weird or eccentric stunt done by a self-proclaimed "artist" getting major attention.
what's the perceptible difference between a network purposefully left open for public access, and one that is private, but mal-configured?
I think this is where common sense has to be taken into account. If I park at Starbucks and grab your open wifi connection from the apartment complex next door, it's a lot different than if I sit down in my suburban back yard and hit an open WAP when there's nothing within range but other homes. The former can be dismissed as an honest mistake; the latter cannot.
did you call up Google or Yahoo or your ISP or whoever provides it and ask them if you had permission to connect to their server? Did you call the person hosting TFA before clicking on the link asking if you had permission to access their server?
Obviously not, any more than I asked permission to enter a store. A web server is a lot different than a WAP in function and in intent. An unlocked door at a business and an unlocked door at a residence are similar.
Sure. I found your car key in your house (the door was unlocked, remember) and took it for a drive. I returned it safe and sound, so what's the harm?
What do you mean you don't have an unlimited gasoline supply? You pay per gallon? What?
Satellite internet providers will throttle a user down siginificantly if their use exceeds so many GB per month. By using their wireless network, you are consuming bandwidth they pay for and causing them to be throttled when they might not be if you hadn't connected. Not to mention people who actually do pay per MB/GB.
An unsecure wireless network is NOT an invitation, and negotiating a network connection does not equate implied permission to use the network. Just because you can do something unimpeded does not make it okay. I've seen malfunctioning routers that SHOULD be using encryption fail do to so. The configuration showed encryption as being active, but it worked as an open access point.
Therein lies the problem. Once you support string theory, you become a string theorist. It would be quite a paradox for a non-string theorist to support it, don't you think?
More seriously, what do Perry's religious views have to do with his validity as a keynote speaker at E3?
Unless he decides to go off on a preaching spree, the answer is...NOTHING.
Not long after I got married, my grandfather told me two things: First, it's a myth that she always wants to be right. If you let her win all the fights she'll see you as weak, and women don't want weak men unless there's something wrong with them. You just make sure *you* are right before you set about proving her wrong. Second, he told me that at 78 years old, he still had a sex life with his wife. He said something like "I know you don't want to know about it, but you need to know that there's a reward for doing things right. You make her happy, she'll keep you happy."
My grandparents have been married for 57 years. They have their fights and get over them rather than letting it eat at them. My grandmother's sister and her husband (51 years or so) are the same way. Tell it how it is, sort it out, and get on with life.
My wife and I take that to heart. Six years and two kids into the marriage, I still get my fill in bed and she's generally happy--though like most women, she'd be happier if we had more money. We have plenty of fights, some seriously heated, but they're brief and we follow them through to the end even if it means staying up til 2 am sorting things out.
Oh, here's a good one on a retest:
Alex is taller than Dennis, who is shorter than Eunice. Chris is shorter than Bob, but taller than Alex. Who among them is the third tallest?
So Bob is taller than Chris, who is taller than Alex, who is taller than Dennis. Dennis is shorter than Eunice, but we're never told who is taller.
There are two possible answers to this question (Eunice and Alex) and they're both presented as options.
As a test of the author's IQ...they fail.
Did the Pirates of the Burning Sea patch a step in the right direction? And how does one patch a step?
Why is the Sea Patch burning?
Maybe they misspelled "see" as "sea". Pirates of the Burning see patch...but wait, how could a pirate see his own patch? Is that patch a lie? Does it hide a perfectly good eye? An eye which sees the patch?
Nonsense.
An unknown computer genius would write a virus for their vast computer system after three days of exposure to it, and then upload it by way of a MacBook, crippling their defenses and allowing a ragtag band of fighter pilots (very few of whom have actually flown the planes they've been given) to take down the invader's superweapons.
Technology's got nothing on good old corporate-sponsored flag-waving feel-good heroic ingenuity.
Hardly!
I don't see how the equivalent of fingerprinting everyone who is booked--a practice that is perfectly acceptable by the vast majority--could be compared with fingerprinting children who have been profiled as potential criminals.
I'd say that Google should have given the driver the ability to turn the camera off in the event they needed to drive onto private property for whatever reason.
Screening a city's worth of photographs is no small task. Better to make the driver responsible for recognizing such issues before the photos are even taken.
Gawking in my window from the public street is legal. Gawking in my window from my driveway/lawn/whatever is not.
The difference? I own my driveway.
The problem here is that Google employed an idiot driver who blindly followed the GPS, which apparently indicated that the street terminated around the garage. They *should have* recognized a clear property line at the concrete drive.
An iPhone knock-off, a slightly-less-bulky blackberry, a ruggedized clamshell, and a bunch of push-to-talk, GPS-capable phones. The only remotely interesting ones were 8-10 because they actually do something new.
Slashdot Mirror
Shhh we want to complain about how he doesn't do everything we want while giving us free music.
His copy of Mack the Knife is BEAUTIFUL. Sounds better than my 78 version. I want his copy :(
MS doesn't put their product in schools, not that I've seen. That was Apple's gig in the 80s, and it failed miserably. It took OSX to save the Mac, and Intel to make it mainstream.
Schools buy Microsoft products, just like everyone else. We get them at a discount, but we still pay about $150 for Vista (downgraded to XP as soon as we get it) and Office on every new PC.
Why not? Isn't that how most small-time inventors get noticed by big companies...either developing a new product or improving an existing one?
A couple of college student can't approach Hasbro and say "We've got a great idea for an online version of Scrabble...will you let us make it?" Hasbro will laugh them out the doors. But when they execute it well and have a massive fan base, why would Hasbro NOT want to cash in on what is already there and developed?
Hasbro would have done a lot better to do something like this:
"We'll give you an endorsement and let you use the Scrabble logo and *not take legal action* if you will maintain certain standards and give us a cut of your advertising profits as a licensing fee."
And then negotiate as fair a deal as both parties can agree upon.
This is where modern copyright litigation really fails these companies: they're so quick to shut down anyone who might potentially be stepping into their IP, they're passing up really amazing opportunities at making use of their innovation. If these guys can do Scrabble so well, why not encourage them to do other Hasbro games in a way that makes Hasbro money?
But...it's ART! How dare you question anything deemed art? Forgive me. I am just tired of every weird or eccentric stunt done by a self-proclaimed "artist" getting major attention.
By that logic, plugging a laptop into a corporate network and receiving an IP address is permission to use their network.
And in a situation like that, they couldn't very well be prosecuted, as it would be unintentional.
I think this is where common sense has to be taken into account. If I park at Starbucks and grab your open wifi connection from the apartment complex next door, it's a lot different than if I sit down in my suburban back yard and hit an open WAP when there's nothing within range but other homes. The former can be dismissed as an honest mistake; the latter cannot.
Obviously not, any more than I asked permission to enter a store. A web server is a lot different than a WAP in function and in intent. An unlocked door at a business and an unlocked door at a residence are similar.
Sure. I found your car key in your house (the door was unlocked, remember) and took it for a drive. I returned it safe and sound, so what's the harm?
What do you mean you don't have an unlimited gasoline supply? You pay per gallon? What?
Satellite internet providers will throttle a user down siginificantly if their use exceeds so many GB per month. By using their wireless network, you are consuming bandwidth they pay for and causing them to be throttled when they might not be if you hadn't connected. Not to mention people who actually do pay per MB/GB.
An unsecure wireless network is NOT an invitation, and negotiating a network connection does not equate implied permission to use the network. Just because you can do something unimpeded does not make it okay. I've seen malfunctioning routers that SHOULD be using encryption fail do to so. The configuration showed encryption as being active, but it worked as an open access point.
Therein lies the problem. Once you support string theory, you become a string theorist. It would be quite a paradox for a non-string theorist to support it, don't you think?
Hell, it might even pinch off a new universe...
More seriously, what do Perry's religious views have to do with his validity as a keynote speaker at E3? Unless he decides to go off on a preaching spree, the answer is...NOTHING.
Not long after I got married, my grandfather told me two things: First, it's a myth that she always wants to be right. If you let her win all the fights she'll see you as weak, and women don't want weak men unless there's something wrong with them. You just make sure *you* are right before you set about proving her wrong. Second, he told me that at 78 years old, he still had a sex life with his wife. He said something like "I know you don't want to know about it, but you need to know that there's a reward for doing things right. You make her happy, she'll keep you happy."
My grandparents have been married for 57 years. They have their fights and get over them rather than letting it eat at them. My grandmother's sister and her husband (51 years or so) are the same way. Tell it how it is, sort it out, and get on with life.
My wife and I take that to heart. Six years and two kids into the marriage, I still get my fill in bed and she's generally happy--though like most women, she'd be happier if we had more money. We have plenty of fights, some seriously heated, but they're brief and we follow them through to the end even if it means staying up til 2 am sorting things out.
In other words, never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
:)
The same can be said for much of what a government does. They're not out to get you...they're just morons
Oh, here's a good one on a retest: Alex is taller than Dennis, who is shorter than Eunice. Chris is shorter than Bob, but taller than Alex. Who among them is the third tallest? So Bob is taller than Chris, who is taller than Alex, who is taller than Dennis. Dennis is shorter than Eunice, but we're never told who is taller. There are two possible answers to this question (Eunice and Alex) and they're both presented as options. As a test of the author's IQ...they fail.
Since when does history education equate intelligence?
Did the Pirates of the Burning Sea patch a step in the right direction? And how does one patch a step? Why is the Sea Patch burning? Maybe they misspelled "see" as "sea". Pirates of the Burning see patch...but wait, how could a pirate see his own patch? Is that patch a lie? Does it hide a perfectly good eye? An eye which sees the patch?
Why not imbibium?
I imagine this post prompted much head-scratching. 115 was one of the first things I thought about when reading the summary.
Nonsense. An unknown computer genius would write a virus for their vast computer system after three days of exposure to it, and then upload it by way of a MacBook, crippling their defenses and allowing a ragtag band of fighter pilots (very few of whom have actually flown the planes they've been given) to take down the invader's superweapons. Technology's got nothing on good old corporate-sponsored flag-waving feel-good heroic ingenuity.
Hardly! I don't see how the equivalent of fingerprinting everyone who is booked--a practice that is perfectly acceptable by the vast majority--could be compared with fingerprinting children who have been profiled as potential criminals.
I'd say that Google should have given the driver the ability to turn the camera off in the event they needed to drive onto private property for whatever reason. Screening a city's worth of photographs is no small task. Better to make the driver responsible for recognizing such issues before the photos are even taken.
ot: slashdot is getting so ridiculously ajaxy! the preview "loading" pane is pink!
They should change it to magenta.Gawking in my window from the public street is legal. Gawking in my window from my driveway/lawn/whatever is not. The difference? I own my driveway. The problem here is that Google employed an idiot driver who blindly followed the GPS, which apparently indicated that the street terminated around the garage. They *should have* recognized a clear property line at the concrete drive.
An iPhone knock-off, a slightly-less-bulky blackberry, a ruggedized clamshell, and a bunch of push-to-talk, GPS-capable phones. The only remotely interesting ones were 8-10 because they actually do something new.