Netbooks crashed primarily because of MS and the manufacturers got featuritis. Netbooks aren't really sold anymore, I'm not really sure that there is a lack of demand, but as long as nobody is selling a cheap, ultramobile device, it's really hard for demand to develop and be sustained.
I've got an Asus netbook, and apart from the battery life, I love the thing, it's big enough to type on, but small enough to be readily portable. But, then again, it doesn't run Windows, and MS expects to get a share of any netbook sales.
Amazon didn't have much choice with the DRM, not with Apple engaging in monopoly abuse. DRM free was pretty much the only way that they could provide a service that was competitive with the ITMS and I'm sure it cost them plenty in terms of pool of songs and price.
You didn't buy a license you bought a copy. CDs do not come with EULAs or ToS that dictate otherwise and I've never opened a jewel case and found such an agreement. Admittedly, it's been years since I bought anything from a major studio, but I doubt that much has changed.
Consequently, if that's how they view it and expect it to be treated, they'd be liable for all sorts of false advertising and fraud suits.
There is no difference here, ultimately the end users would be responsible for any infringement, but in this case there would be no infringement involved as there is no distribution. As long as Amazon has something in place to prevent these accounts being used for distribution they should be legally in the clear.
The RIAA of course doesn't agree with that, but those are the same people that make money by selling people several copies of the same work because their DRM prevents people from making full use of their fair use rights.
The truth is a defense for libel, but you have to prove that you're posting the truth. I don't think that you can do that, because the article definitely does not reflect what you've said.
I think the problem there is that it's going to vary across computers to the point that the software itself isn't really being measured. Measuring OSes for energy efficiency might be realistic, but applications that run on them would be ridiculous. Plus, the hardware components use the energy anyways, if you minimize the power usage of each component to the extent possible you'll minimize the usage of the entire computer.
Yes, that's a bit simplistic for the important aspects it's correct.
Newspaper journalists typically get those stories off the AP wire service, something which the paper pays for and contributes to in order to use the content. Typically you'll see at the top of such stories a byline crediting the AP as the source.
TV and Radio is a little different, I'm not familiar enough to know how they handle or don't handle that situation.
The issue isn't that they independently came up with the same fact. The issue is that they stole the fact along with the text that surrounds it then tried to pass it off as their own work by editing the article. Since they edited the article I can't read it as it originally appeared, but if that's what really happened, then yes, they ripped the blog writer off for hist content.
A typical P/E for companies in general is 16, the tech sector tends to have unreasonably high P/E ratios, if you actually look at the fundamentals, MS is a much better buy than Apple or Google, it just isn't buzz worthy anymore. Tech shares sell as much on ones dreams as anything about the company, which is why MS is selling for so much less despite being in a stronger position, they are dull as dirt.
And at a certain point traders decide that a stock is only worth a certain amount of money and won't pay any more than that. Regardless of the profits that might be available. And for better or for worse, neither Apple nor Google have been called to account for their antitrust violations yet. Something that MS has to be mindful of even if they did escape with a slap on the wrist.
It's already known that the victim wrote the notes and devised the code, any possible information that isn't known would be contained in the text. I'm betting that it's never deciphered. Just because it's more likely that it's a key to something locked in the victims brain.
One thought I had was this is a form of short hand cross with a minor cipher. Meaning that it's not intended to be a message for anybody else to understand, but to jog the memory of the victim. Meaning that it's more like an asymmetric encryption system than what the FBI is considering. Which would make it more or less impossible to solve because most of the information was destroyed when the person was killed.
I'm not familiar enough with the case to know, but it seems rather unlikely that this is the only evidence if the killer wasn't methodical and yet it happens to be left at the crime scene. Sure it could happen, but it seems a bit convenient that it was not known about.
Suggesting of course that the killer didn't know about it and that more likely than not there isn't any information that any living person would understand.
I'm guessing that he did something like leave out certain letters and use nicknames for people and objects at points. On top of whatever he was doing for a code. The reason why, is that as you said almost nobody can do strong crypto in their head and this thing hasn't been cracked using the standard methods. Meaning that it needs to be read without a machine and it doesn't follow an obvious pattern.
Good luck to anybody trying to decode it because if victim has used nicknames that only the he knew the chances of identifying the correct message even if it is eventually found is negligible.
A broken clock is right twice a day. The antinuclear folks didn't predict this and they certainly don't understand why this happened. This is an indictment on the Japanese government for allowing the building of nuclear reactors in such an earthquake prone region, this is not an indictment on nuclear energy in general. Even with this disaster nuclear energy still hasn't killed as many people as have died in the production of other forms of energy.
That's really not a fair comparison to make, the Chernobyl incident could have been completely sidestepped had they operated within safety guidelines. In fact the other rest of the site was in operation until 2000, even with the outdated and weak technology that the Soviets had used during construction.
This however was unavoidable, well once the decision to build a nuclear reactor in such an earthquake prone area was made. Other types of reactors are less prone to such issues, but for this type of a reactor building it in an earthquake zone is a bad idea.
Plus, a lot of the rest of that stuff is FUD, the total deaths from nuclear energy are significantly lower than the total deaths from coal power, but ZOMG teh nucular poewr will k1ll uss !1!!eleventy11!!!
That was my thought, you can block or reduce the radiation being emitted from the plant with a thick concrete barrier, but that does absolutely nothing for the radioactive water leaking out the bottom or to prevent the other problems that are present. And that's even if you do manage to get the concrete barrier in place like right now.
It's a matter of motivation back in the 70s and 80s and through much of the 90s, the number of computer users was small enough that you could do that, but a lot of people that make up the growth aren't motivated to learn, which is why even extremely simple things are beyond their grasp.
MS, Apple and some of the Linux distros aren't helping anybody by discouraging people from experimenting and looking to get better at it.
Admittedly it's impossible to answer, but the question really ought to be whether Ma Bell was more or less innovative than the number of companies that would have done the work otherwise in trying to elbow each other out of the market.
You could at least link to credible sources if you're going to bother. The Cato institute is a well known conservative think tank that openly advocates for conservative policies, whether or not there's any basis in fact for doing so.
The problem with monopolies is that while most of them were created intentionally through government action, that's no longer the case, most of them form from the failure of the government to step in and break them up. In fact the DoJ under Bush didn't even acknowledge that corporations could get too big, hence the final stage of our bubble before the epic recession started.
The problem is that most urban areas in the US have at least 2 choices of ISP, the problem is that they've figured out that they don't have to compete, they just can't discuss it or make it formal. Any competition you see is going to be pretty superficial. Around here we've got Qwest and Comcast. I suppose you could include Clear and Hughes, but nobody does as the latency is even worse.
But, they've figured out that they don't have to compete with each other which means that we're now in the situation where the speed hasn't increased more than nominally in a decade and for the price in other parts of the country we could get a much, much faster connection. But we're poking along at 5mbps and feeling lucky because other parts of the city can't even get that.
Slashdot Mirror
Netbooks crashed primarily because of MS and the manufacturers got featuritis. Netbooks aren't really sold anymore, I'm not really sure that there is a lack of demand, but as long as nobody is selling a cheap, ultramobile device, it's really hard for demand to develop and be sustained.
I've got an Asus netbook, and apart from the battery life, I love the thing, it's big enough to type on, but small enough to be readily portable. But, then again, it doesn't run Windows, and MS expects to get a share of any netbook sales.
Amazon didn't have much choice with the DRM, not with Apple engaging in monopoly abuse. DRM free was pretty much the only way that they could provide a service that was competitive with the ITMS and I'm sure it cost them plenty in terms of pool of songs and price.
That's not true. As far as what you do with your copy, they don't get a say, so long as you don't distribute it or use it as a performance.
I hear that if you say RIAA three times in a row in front of a mirror that the MPAA sues you for copyright infringement.
You didn't buy a license you bought a copy. CDs do not come with EULAs or ToS that dictate otherwise and I've never opened a jewel case and found such an agreement. Admittedly, it's been years since I bought anything from a major studio, but I doubt that much has changed.
Consequently, if that's how they view it and expect it to be treated, they'd be liable for all sorts of false advertising and fraud suits.
There is no difference here, ultimately the end users would be responsible for any infringement, but in this case there would be no infringement involved as there is no distribution. As long as Amazon has something in place to prevent these accounts being used for distribution they should be legally in the clear.
The RIAA of course doesn't agree with that, but those are the same people that make money by selling people several copies of the same work because their DRM prevents people from making full use of their fair use rights.
Because when you call for a hit, you want to make sure that the correct person ends up in lavender.
The truth is a defense for libel, but you have to prove that you're posting the truth. I don't think that you can do that, because the article definitely does not reflect what you've said.
I think the problem there is that it's going to vary across computers to the point that the software itself isn't really being measured. Measuring OSes for energy efficiency might be realistic, but applications that run on them would be ridiculous. Plus, the hardware components use the energy anyways, if you minimize the power usage of each component to the extent possible you'll minimize the usage of the entire computer.
Yes, that's a bit simplistic for the important aspects it's correct.
I know, but what if my company won't let me upgrade to Firefox?
You might want to tone down the libel yourself.
Newspaper journalists typically get those stories off the AP wire service, something which the paper pays for and contributes to in order to use the content. Typically you'll see at the top of such stories a byline crediting the AP as the source.
TV and Radio is a little different, I'm not familiar enough to know how they handle or don't handle that situation.
The issue isn't that they independently came up with the same fact. The issue is that they stole the fact along with the text that surrounds it then tried to pass it off as their own work by editing the article. Since they edited the article I can't read it as it originally appeared, but if that's what really happened, then yes, they ripped the blog writer off for hist content.
A typical P/E for companies in general is 16, the tech sector tends to have unreasonably high P/E ratios, if you actually look at the fundamentals, MS is a much better buy than Apple or Google, it just isn't buzz worthy anymore. Tech shares sell as much on ones dreams as anything about the company, which is why MS is selling for so much less despite being in a stronger position, they are dull as dirt.
And at a certain point traders decide that a stock is only worth a certain amount of money and won't pay any more than that. Regardless of the profits that might be available. And for better or for worse, neither Apple nor Google have been called to account for their antitrust violations yet. Something that MS has to be mindful of even if they did escape with a slap on the wrist.
It's already known that the victim wrote the notes and devised the code, any possible information that isn't known would be contained in the text. I'm betting that it's never deciphered. Just because it's more likely that it's a key to something locked in the victims brain.
One thought I had was this is a form of short hand cross with a minor cipher. Meaning that it's not intended to be a message for anybody else to understand, but to jog the memory of the victim. Meaning that it's more like an asymmetric encryption system than what the FBI is considering. Which would make it more or less impossible to solve because most of the information was destroyed when the person was killed.
I'm not familiar enough with the case to know, but it seems rather unlikely that this is the only evidence if the killer wasn't methodical and yet it happens to be left at the crime scene. Sure it could happen, but it seems a bit convenient that it was not known about.
Suggesting of course that the killer didn't know about it and that more likely than not there isn't any information that any living person would understand.
I'm guessing that he did something like leave out certain letters and use nicknames for people and objects at points. On top of whatever he was doing for a code. The reason why, is that as you said almost nobody can do strong crypto in their head and this thing hasn't been cracked using the standard methods. Meaning that it needs to be read without a machine and it doesn't follow an obvious pattern.
Good luck to anybody trying to decode it because if victim has used nicknames that only the he knew the chances of identifying the correct message even if it is eventually found is negligible.
A broken clock is right twice a day. The antinuclear folks didn't predict this and they certainly don't understand why this happened. This is an indictment on the Japanese government for allowing the building of nuclear reactors in such an earthquake prone region, this is not an indictment on nuclear energy in general. Even with this disaster nuclear energy still hasn't killed as many people as have died in the production of other forms of energy.
That's really not a fair comparison to make, the Chernobyl incident could have been completely sidestepped had they operated within safety guidelines. In fact the other rest of the site was in operation until 2000, even with the outdated and weak technology that the Soviets had used during construction.
This however was unavoidable, well once the decision to build a nuclear reactor in such an earthquake prone area was made. Other types of reactors are less prone to such issues, but for this type of a reactor building it in an earthquake zone is a bad idea.
Plus, a lot of the rest of that stuff is FUD, the total deaths from nuclear energy are significantly lower than the total deaths from coal power, but ZOMG teh nucular poewr will k1ll uss !1!!eleventy11!!!
That was my thought, you can block or reduce the radiation being emitted from the plant with a thick concrete barrier, but that does absolutely nothing for the radioactive water leaking out the bottom or to prevent the other problems that are present. And that's even if you do manage to get the concrete barrier in place like right now.
My initial reaction was, "MySpace had 10 million users?"
It's a matter of motivation back in the 70s and 80s and through much of the 90s, the number of computer users was small enough that you could do that, but a lot of people that make up the growth aren't motivated to learn, which is why even extremely simple things are beyond their grasp.
MS, Apple and some of the Linux distros aren't helping anybody by discouraging people from experimenting and looking to get better at it.
Admittedly it's impossible to answer, but the question really ought to be whether Ma Bell was more or less innovative than the number of companies that would have done the work otherwise in trying to elbow each other out of the market.
You could at least link to credible sources if you're going to bother. The Cato institute is a well known conservative think tank that openly advocates for conservative policies, whether or not there's any basis in fact for doing so.
The problem with monopolies is that while most of them were created intentionally through government action, that's no longer the case, most of them form from the failure of the government to step in and break them up. In fact the DoJ under Bush didn't even acknowledge that corporations could get too big, hence the final stage of our bubble before the epic recession started.
The problem is that most urban areas in the US have at least 2 choices of ISP, the problem is that they've figured out that they don't have to compete, they just can't discuss it or make it formal. Any competition you see is going to be pretty superficial. Around here we've got Qwest and Comcast. I suppose you could include Clear and Hughes, but nobody does as the latency is even worse.
But, they've figured out that they don't have to compete with each other which means that we're now in the situation where the speed hasn't increased more than nominally in a decade and for the price in other parts of the country we could get a much, much faster connection. But we're poking along at 5mbps and feeling lucky because other parts of the city can't even get that.