I had an iPhone 3GS I had to charge every day. I want to know what sort of micromanagement you're doing on your iPhone where you can go "a few days" without charging it.
I totally get the unified inbox thing. I'm just confused about the need for multiple exchange accounts. How many people need to list more than one exchange account at a time in a way that "open other mailbox on start" doesn't handle?
Now that you mention it, I think I've had this conversation before. It turned out the reason was because DA used to (still?) would do "artwork of the week" or whatever from people's galleries and so would use them in intra-site events.
I suppose my question would be, is going to news.google.com performing a search that returns results? Does it count as a "search" if it only happens on the back end?
You're saying that knowing how to properly use tools in a creative endeavor is not a creative skill. You're pretty wrong. The technical part of a creative process is just as important as the... "inspirational" part.
You're essentially saying that knowing the proper brush to use for a work is irrelevant when discussing the skill level of a novice vs expert painter. On the contrary, it's that sort of skill in selecting your tools that allows the resulting work to look more refined.
Yes, there are artists who can create masterpieces with very rudimentary tools. Most creative folks are not quite that masochistic, however.
Navies are mostly obsolete unless you're planning an infantry invasion.
Both China and Russia are working on R&D for 5th generation air superiority aircraft (to compete with the F-22). Mix in chem/bio agents into that equation and you get a pretty scary picture.
Navies are obsolete? Tell me that again when someone *with* a Navy is sitting off your coast and doesn't *need* aircraft to strike targets 100s of miles inland.
The US armed forces are well equipped to endure and operate under a chemical attack (part of the reason they're generally "outlawed", as much as such things can be, is because against modern armed forces they're at best marginally effective but can have significant effects on civilian populations). So even the existence of your first issue is debatable, at best.
On the matter of using WMDs against civilians, sane people/governments don't employ indiscriminate use of chemical/biological/nuclear weapons. The other portion of that ratio are generally undeterred by concepts such as MAD.
Also, cursory glance about the Novichok agents shows them to be effective, but the details of their particular superiority in terms of effectiveness are vague, much less enough to declare them to be "the best in the world".
blah blah. The gap between the US ability to wage war and other major nations is still very large in a conventional sense. Russia can barely fund their military and China doesn't even have a modern Navy.
You make it seem like conventional weapons are a pointless endeavor. Nothing could be further from the truth.
If you're picking up weapons, you're making yourself a combatant (or, at least, a potential threat to me). I'd have shot too, considering the entire war was engagements against people you couldn't tell apart from civilians.
They've done a fairly good job getting larger than they were, but let's be honest: When Apple devotees say "gaining ground" on Microsoft, they mean "and will eventually be a toe-to-toe competitor for Microsoft". Since Apple has no real interest in the corporate sphere (beyond some cursory offerings) and they're very obviously more interested in "computing devices" rather than computers.
Not to mention that, as shown a few months ago, a huge percentage of OS X users also have Windows machines (not to mention they routinely buy some variant of Microsoft Office).
Ah yes, the eternal maxim of scandalous reporting: Crowds fired upon are always "unarmed civilians". With no real context to the larger situation going on, we have no idea what the real story is. If I'm in a gunship and a guy in a crowd of civilians has a stinger (or the like), the people in that crowd are about to have a really bad day. Sucks, but that's life.
Recall the (reoccurring) stories every time the Israelis and Palestinians go at it, with instantaneous stories about how the Israelis are targeting civilians and UN buildings. Of course, after things settle down there's some page 19 story about how those buildings were being used as cover for combatants, but no one has any vested interest in showing that the Palestinians military forces aren't all valiant freedom fighters.
Not saying the US military are angels, but there's no ad dollars in "US military does good job in bad situation" headlines.
Yeah but the comparison in terms of purchases is still Apples (hah) to orangutans. We buy Windows-based desktops and laptops by the dozen, while getting the occasional Mac Pro for a creative.
It amuses me when folks think Apple is "gaining ground" while even overall still having, at best, 10% of the market.
Heh, every post that defends copyright in this particular thread is down-modded, and every one that says "zomg copyright is bad" is upmodded. Brilliant!
Out of curiosity, what benefit do you believe you would receive from having the length of copyright be, say, 20 years from date of initial publication?
In what way, do you believe, it would promote the creation of new works in our society over the situation that exists today? (Protip: Most "new creative content" does not come from major studios, just the most easily found and often the most popular titles)
The Constitution sets up the right of an owner to control their works for some finite time and gives Congress the power to set the details.
Congress has set the finite time span and the details.
There's a debate to be had about what constitutes a fair length of time, but let's be honest, the majority of folks who complain about copyright construct elaborate arguments in order to obfuscate the fact that they want to be able to obtain and utilize other peoples' creative outputs whenever they want, in whatever form they want, for a price they consider fair (usually "free").
Until there's honesty from this (significant) population of the "copyright is unjust" crowd as to their actual motivations, the conversation can't go forward very much.
Slashdot Mirror
Dingdingding, you are correct, sir.
Slashdot has sure developed a weird entitlement attitude, lately.
Yeah, I dunno if the convoluted reasoning for making it contempt of court is justified, but it's spamming, so it should be discouraged at least.
The fact that its Kevin Trudeau isn't making me all that sympathetic, either.
I had an iPhone 3GS I had to charge every day. I want to know what sort of micromanagement you're doing on your iPhone where you can go "a few days" without charging it.
I totally get the unified inbox thing. I'm just confused about the need for multiple exchange accounts. How many people need to list more than one exchange account at a time in a way that "open other mailbox on start" doesn't handle?
Account options > More options > Advanced > Open These Additional Mailboxes
Unfortunately that method opens up the secondary mailbox in the same context as the primary account - same server, same login credentials.
However... I've been using the Office 2010 beta and FYI they finally added true multiple-exchange account support.
My question is, how many users really need that particular option? What does that ability fill that "open mailbox on start" doesn't?
Now that you mention it, I think I've had this conversation before. It turned out the reason was because DA used to (still?) would do "artwork of the week" or whatever from people's galleries and so would use them in intra-site events.
I suppose my question would be, is going to news.google.com performing a search that returns results? Does it count as a "search" if it only happens on the back end?
You're saying that knowing how to properly use tools in a creative endeavor is not a creative skill. You're pretty wrong. The technical part of a creative process is just as important as the... "inspirational" part.
You're essentially saying that knowing the proper brush to use for a work is irrelevant when discussing the skill level of a novice vs expert painter. On the contrary, it's that sort of skill in selecting your tools that allows the resulting work to look more refined.
Yes, there are artists who can create masterpieces with very rudimentary tools. Most creative folks are not quite that masochistic, however.
Addendum: "copying/ripping something they themselves already owned a legal copy of"
You'd be hard pressed to find a case where someone was sued for copying/ripping with no distribution.
But, Google isn't doing it for personal use, and that's the difference here.
If the work was actually in public domain, we wouldn't be having this conversation because we'd be over at Project Gutenberg,et al, reading it.
The difference is that they have to obtain permission to present that picture in a different format due to transformation.
It's the reason Deviant Art's EULA has you give them non-exclusive permission to transform/use your works, so they can generate thumbnails.
Now, I'm sure that Google won't agree with this thought process, but there's definitely a legal argument to be made.
Where she used to use lesser cameras, pictures taken with her Canon are quite often very dramatic and interesting.
People who use better tools end up with better end results with the same skill set? Shocking.
Navies are mostly obsolete unless you're planning an infantry invasion. Both China and Russia are working on R&D for 5th generation air superiority aircraft (to compete with the F-22). Mix in chem/bio agents into that equation and you get a pretty scary picture.
Navies are obsolete? Tell me that again when someone *with* a Navy is sitting off your coast and doesn't *need* aircraft to strike targets 100s of miles inland.
The US armed forces are well equipped to endure and operate under a chemical attack (part of the reason they're generally "outlawed", as much as such things can be, is because against modern armed forces they're at best marginally effective but can have significant effects on civilian populations). So even the existence of your first issue is debatable, at best.
On the matter of using WMDs against civilians, sane people/governments don't employ indiscriminate use of chemical/biological/nuclear weapons. The other portion of that ratio are generally undeterred by concepts such as MAD.
Also, cursory glance about the Novichok agents shows them to be effective, but the details of their particular superiority in terms of effectiveness are vague, much less enough to declare them to be "the best in the world".
blah blah. The gap between the US ability to wage war and other major nations is still very large in a conventional sense. Russia can barely fund their military and China doesn't even have a modern Navy.
You make it seem like conventional weapons are a pointless endeavor. Nothing could be further from the truth.
If you're picking up weapons, you're making yourself a combatant (or, at least, a potential threat to me). I'd have shot too, considering the entire war was engagements against people you couldn't tell apart from civilians.
Well, I'm glad you're here to straighten us all out. What would we do without you.
They've done a fairly good job getting larger than they were, but let's be honest: When Apple devotees say "gaining ground" on Microsoft, they mean "and will eventually be a toe-to-toe competitor for Microsoft". Since Apple has no real interest in the corporate sphere (beyond some cursory offerings) and they're very obviously more interested in "computing devices" rather than computers.
Not to mention that, as shown a few months ago, a huge percentage of OS X users also have Windows machines (not to mention they routinely buy some variant of Microsoft Office).
Ah yes, the eternal maxim of scandalous reporting: Crowds fired upon are always "unarmed civilians". With no real context to the larger situation going on, we have no idea what the real story is. If I'm in a gunship and a guy in a crowd of civilians has a stinger (or the like), the people in that crowd are about to have a really bad day. Sucks, but that's life.
Recall the (reoccurring) stories every time the Israelis and Palestinians go at it, with instantaneous stories about how the Israelis are targeting civilians and UN buildings. Of course, after things settle down there's some page 19 story about how those buildings were being used as cover for combatants, but no one has any vested interest in showing that the Palestinians military forces aren't all valiant freedom fighters.
Not saying the US military are angels, but there's no ad dollars in "US military does good job in bad situation" headlines.
Yeah but the comparison in terms of purchases is still Apples (hah) to orangutans. We buy Windows-based desktops and laptops by the dozen, while getting the occasional Mac Pro for a creative.
It amuses me when folks think Apple is "gaining ground" while even overall still having, at best, 10% of the market.
Yeah, there's no middle ground there at all. You're so smrt.
The idea that the market is perfectly (or even mostly) efficient is stupid and shows you don't really know what you're talking about.
Heh, every post that defends copyright in this particular thread is down-modded, and every one that says "zomg copyright is bad" is upmodded. Brilliant!
Out of curiosity, what benefit do you believe you would receive from having the length of copyright be, say, 20 years from date of initial publication?
In what way, do you believe, it would promote the creation of new works in our society over the situation that exists today? (Protip: Most "new creative content" does not come from major studios, just the most easily found and often the most popular titles)
The relevant points:
The Constitution sets up the right of an owner to control their works for some finite time and gives Congress the power to set the details.
Congress has set the finite time span and the details.
There's a debate to be had about what constitutes a fair length of time, but let's be honest, the majority of folks who complain about copyright construct elaborate arguments in order to obfuscate the fact that they want to be able to obtain and utilize other peoples' creative outputs whenever they want, in whatever form they want, for a price they consider fair (usually "free").
Until there's honesty from this (significant) population of the "copyright is unjust" crowd as to their actual motivations, the conversation can't go forward very much.
Take it up with the US Constitution, that's the only way it's going to change.