The problem with Unity is that even if they do get it to work properly, they managed to chase off people by introducing an obviously alpha menu bar that doesn't scale well to large displays, with the threat of dropping the alternatives with a future release.
They probably will/have gotten it to work properly, but at this point it's pretty hard to justify using a distro that can't even be arsed to allow logins with a wireless keyboard.
Which works fine, as long as you're happy with the decisions that Canonical makes, it's a bit like Apple actually, it works fine as long as you don't want to do something that the creator of the software doesn't intend for you to to at which point it becomes a major hassle. At least with Ubuntu, you can ultimately install the packages or remove them.
No, you can't. You could theoretically use a Kinect to figure out where the image should be projected, however you're not really solving the problem of having an image that can't be viewed from multiple angles and it would only work if the viewers were sitting next to each other at which point you might as well just manually adjust it yourself..
And that there's the problem, I don't want them to have access to that information, but there's a lot of online services that I need to use in order to go about my daily life. Many of which have equivalents that are offline and not completely inconvenient. But, there are things which don't have an offline equivalent or where doing it offline wouldn't be feasible.
I've tried to block random 3rd party javascript, but at the end of the day, the web is so fundamentally broken at this point that you never know what scripts are necessary and which ones are just for the purposes of spying on you.
The nub of it is that the linguistic profiling bigots and morons need to more or less just fuck themselves. It's every bit as bigoted as the folks that go around saying nasty things about people of color and homosexuals.
If you read the article, you'd see that you're wrong. Jobs charged Xerox for the discounted shares in order to see what was going on at PARC, Xerox did not give Apple a license to use the look and feel or any of the IP. Later after Apple sued MS for stealing the look and feel, Xerox sued Apple for stealing the look and feel. Ultimately, the Xerox suit was thrown out on a technicality, but that whole business hardly sounds like an above the board deal.
I keep hearing people claim that Apple didn't steal their desktop style design from Xerox and that they paid for it, but it never happened. Apple paid to take a look at what Xerox was doing, and was ultimately sued for stealing the look and feel from Xerox. That isn't exactly the sort of thing you'd expect if Apple had really licensed the look and feel. It did turn out to be a moot point when all was said and done because you can't copyright it, but still.
It's still dangerous even if you are in rural Nebraska, even if it isn't as dangerous as it is in the cities and there's ultimately no reason why one should be talking on the phone without at least a headset.
It's banned here, in fact it's a primary offense, meaning that police officers can pull you over for it without any other reason, but I still see plenty of people doing it. And worse, they'll not just talk on the phone, but they'll text. It's one thing to engage in behaviors that might remove the doer from the gene pool and quite another to risk other folks in the process.
I'm not aware of any videos being WebM only, there are plenty of H.264 only videos, but all the videos I've seen that offer WebM are also available in H.264 and Flash varieties.
Indeed, one of the reasons why I always had a soft spot for Arthur C. Clarke was that he had an engineering degree and he spent a huge amount of time on conveying what life itself was like in the future or on another planet. So, much so that one could envision what was going on there, and in some cases take ideas that he had and see about turning them into reality.
It's the details like in 3001 where being circumsized is regarded as mutilation which help make things somewhat mysterious and help one consider the future.
I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with fantasy, but I do think that it's important to recognize the difference as it's much more likely for a sci-fi novel to come to fruition than a fantasy novel.
Amazon provides that service through https://www.createspace.com/ they may provide it in other ways, but you can get editors like that. You can also hire your own editor through the editors guild, http://edsguild.org/ this is the one for the North West, but I"m sure there are options like this in other parts of the country. It is expensive and ideally you wouldn't be paying for the service up front, but it is an option if you intend to self publish.
The writers didn't do 90% of the work, what you're forgetting about are the editors, the typesetters, the people that bind the book, the people that distribute the book, the cost of shelf space on which the book sits before being bought.
In short, there are a lot of expenses that come from publishing a book, and suggesting that the publishing industry is keeping 98% of the profits is ignorant. The retailer itself will typically take half the sticker price.
Yes, the writers should get a larger slice of the pie, but it's not quite as bad as you're making it out to be. I hope to sell a novel at some point, and I do intend to do nearly all the work myself and probably self publish in ebook form so as to keep as much of the profit as possible, but publishers do have expenses that they need to pay in order to provide their service to the writer.
I think the concern is that Amazon also serves as a cheap replacement for the vanity presses that are from time to time used to sell books that none of the publishers want. What's more, the ebook version in particular has a very low cost of entry over just writing a manuscript.
Amazon does also have a branch that prints books these days, they also own https://www.createspace.com/ . It's basically a one stop vanity press with editing and marketing services available for sale.
Because most websites tend to be broken if you start disabling random javascript. Which is really the problem, you don't have a basis for making informed consent as they don't tell you what the sites are they're pulling code from and why. If you do start disabling random javascript then you have no actual knowledge of which ones are and aren't necessary or worse aren't even intended by the site.
Now, if you can propose someway of knowing what to actually load, then you're way beyond damn near every single web browser.
No we couldn't, that would be double u as w is vv. And due to the Romans not having a u, they would use v instead hence double u looking more like double v.
I remember in the past being able to turn off the GPS on my phone. I'm not sure if it's a coincidence, nefarious or reasonable, but my signal strength got significantly worse whenever I would disable it. Of course that was years ago.
I doubt they'd risk that. It's cheaper for them to let the few people out of their contracts that don't agree to the terms than it is to hold off on the service or figure out who is and isn't governed by the new rules.
Nice trolling. The computer doesn't have the means to decide what is and is not acceptable to download from a website, I do. However, I don't have the option of making that decision until such a time as it is downloaded. And sites never disclose to me what sites they're using for what purposes, I can of course block sites, but I have no way of knowing what ramifications there might be.
It isn't a matter of human beings being chimps so much as it is the complete lack of information available. I've looked up sites that a site I was going to was wanting to load and found nothing on the site itself. Now, I don't know about you, but I don't have hours on end to look that information up, hoping not to find an unknown site in the meantime. And quite frankly, the whole idea is ludicrous given that you end up in a catch 22 situation of being unable to find out what's going on with the information without giving the information to somebody.
The browser doesn't have legal standing to consent, and a lack of opt out is not the same thing as granting consent. One does not have the ability to prescreen sites before loading them.
It's not willful if you've logged out in the meantime. Just because I have an account with Google for say email or YouTube, does not mean that I consent to have them tracking me when I'm making posts here, or possibly downloading porn.
That's not true. Unless you avoid websites that have those obnoxious like buttons on them there's no way of avoiding them without blocking those domains and the related cookies. Which most people wouldn't do as they have no idea that they're being tracked by them.
Worse is that historically they track people who are logged out of FB or don't have an account to begin with.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with Unity is that even if they do get it to work properly, they managed to chase off people by introducing an obviously alpha menu bar that doesn't scale well to large displays, with the threat of dropping the alternatives with a future release.
They probably will/have gotten it to work properly, but at this point it's pretty hard to justify using a distro that can't even be arsed to allow logins with a wireless keyboard.
Which works fine, as long as you're happy with the decisions that Canonical makes, it's a bit like Apple actually, it works fine as long as you don't want to do something that the creator of the software doesn't intend for you to to at which point it becomes a major hassle. At least with Ubuntu, you can ultimately install the packages or remove them.
No, you can't. You could theoretically use a Kinect to figure out where the image should be projected, however you're not really solving the problem of having an image that can't be viewed from multiple angles and it would only work if the viewers were sitting next to each other at which point you might as well just manually adjust it yourself..
And that there's the problem, I don't want them to have access to that information, but there's a lot of online services that I need to use in order to go about my daily life. Many of which have equivalents that are offline and not completely inconvenient. But, there are things which don't have an offline equivalent or where doing it offline wouldn't be feasible.
I've tried to block random 3rd party javascript, but at the end of the day, the web is so fundamentally broken at this point that you never know what scripts are necessary and which ones are just for the purposes of spying on you.
The nub of it is that the linguistic profiling bigots and morons need to more or less just fuck themselves. It's every bit as bigoted as the folks that go around saying nasty things about people of color and homosexuals.
You do realize that the iPad's shape is hardly unique, I mean for god's sake there's one in 2001 a movie that predate's the iPad by literally decades.
If you read the article, you'd see that you're wrong. Jobs charged Xerox for the discounted shares in order to see what was going on at PARC, Xerox did not give Apple a license to use the look and feel or any of the IP. Later after Apple sued MS for stealing the look and feel, Xerox sued Apple for stealing the look and feel. Ultimately, the Xerox suit was thrown out on a technicality, but that whole business hardly sounds like an above the board deal.
I keep hearing people claim that Apple didn't steal their desktop style design from Xerox and that they paid for it, but it never happened. Apple paid to take a look at what Xerox was doing, and was ultimately sued for stealing the look and feel from Xerox. That isn't exactly the sort of thing you'd expect if Apple had really licensed the look and feel. It did turn out to be a moot point when all was said and done because you can't copyright it, but still.
It's still dangerous even if you are in rural Nebraska, even if it isn't as dangerous as it is in the cities and there's ultimately no reason why one should be talking on the phone without at least a headset.
It's banned here, in fact it's a primary offense, meaning that police officers can pull you over for it without any other reason, but I still see plenty of people doing it. And worse, they'll not just talk on the phone, but they'll text. It's one thing to engage in behaviors that might remove the doer from the gene pool and quite another to risk other folks in the process.
I'm not aware of any videos being WebM only, there are plenty of H.264 only videos, but all the videos I've seen that offer WebM are also available in H.264 and Flash varieties.
Indeed, one of the reasons why I always had a soft spot for Arthur C. Clarke was that he had an engineering degree and he spent a huge amount of time on conveying what life itself was like in the future or on another planet. So, much so that one could envision what was going on there, and in some cases take ideas that he had and see about turning them into reality.
It's the details like in 3001 where being circumsized is regarded as mutilation which help make things somewhat mysterious and help one consider the future.
I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with fantasy, but I do think that it's important to recognize the difference as it's much more likely for a sci-fi novel to come to fruition than a fantasy novel.
Amazon provides that service through https://www.createspace.com/ they may provide it in other ways, but you can get editors like that. You can also hire your own editor through the editors guild, http://edsguild.org/ this is the one for the North West, but I"m sure there are options like this in other parts of the country. It is expensive and ideally you wouldn't be paying for the service up front, but it is an option if you intend to self publish.
The writers didn't do 90% of the work, what you're forgetting about are the editors, the typesetters, the people that bind the book, the people that distribute the book, the cost of shelf space on which the book sits before being bought.
In short, there are a lot of expenses that come from publishing a book, and suggesting that the publishing industry is keeping 98% of the profits is ignorant. The retailer itself will typically take half the sticker price.
Yes, the writers should get a larger slice of the pie, but it's not quite as bad as you're making it out to be. I hope to sell a novel at some point, and I do intend to do nearly all the work myself and probably self publish in ebook form so as to keep as much of the profit as possible, but publishers do have expenses that they need to pay in order to provide their service to the writer.
I think the concern is that Amazon also serves as a cheap replacement for the vanity presses that are from time to time used to sell books that none of the publishers want. What's more, the ebook version in particular has a very low cost of entry over just writing a manuscript.
Amazon does also have a branch that prints books these days, they also own https://www.createspace.com/ . It's basically a one stop vanity press with editing and marketing services available for sale.
Because most websites tend to be broken if you start disabling random javascript. Which is really the problem, you don't have a basis for making informed consent as they don't tell you what the sites are they're pulling code from and why. If you do start disabling random javascript then you have no actual knowledge of which ones are and aren't necessary or worse aren't even intended by the site.
Now, if you can propose someway of knowing what to actually load, then you're way beyond damn near every single web browser.
No we couldn't, that would be double u as w is vv. And due to the Romans not having a u, they would use v instead hence double u looking more like double v.
Which if you think about it is really strange for pi to not be a proper noun.
I remember in the past being able to turn off the GPS on my phone. I'm not sure if it's a coincidence, nefarious or reasonable, but my signal strength got significantly worse whenever I would disable it. Of course that was years ago.
I doubt they'd risk that. It's cheaper for them to let the few people out of their contracts that don't agree to the terms than it is to hold off on the service or figure out who is and isn't governed by the new rules.
Nice trolling. The computer doesn't have the means to decide what is and is not acceptable to download from a website, I do. However, I don't have the option of making that decision until such a time as it is downloaded. And sites never disclose to me what sites they're using for what purposes, I can of course block sites, but I have no way of knowing what ramifications there might be.
It isn't a matter of human beings being chimps so much as it is the complete lack of information available. I've looked up sites that a site I was going to was wanting to load and found nothing on the site itself. Now, I don't know about you, but I don't have hours on end to look that information up, hoping not to find an unknown site in the meantime. And quite frankly, the whole idea is ludicrous given that you end up in a catch 22 situation of being unable to find out what's going on with the information without giving the information to somebody.
The browser doesn't have legal standing to consent, and a lack of opt out is not the same thing as granting consent. One does not have the ability to prescreen sites before loading them.
And unlike at Apple stores, the employees will be accurately labeled. And generally with mittens pinned to their shirts.
It's not willful if you've logged out in the meantime. Just because I have an account with Google for say email or YouTube, does not mean that I consent to have them tracking me when I'm making posts here, or possibly downloading porn.
That's not true. Unless you avoid websites that have those obnoxious like buttons on them there's no way of avoiding them without blocking those domains and the related cookies. Which most people wouldn't do as they have no idea that they're being tracked by them.
Worse is that historically they track people who are logged out of FB or don't have an account to begin with.