It's not an opinion. It's a statement of fact. A statement which the particular person has to substantiate. There is no logical argument which can be inferred which backs up the original statement. Hence why there's a citation needed as the argument runs completely counter to the goals of both groups involved, as in reducing and eliminating dangerous crimes.
It's not common sense, which is the problem, it's a deeply paranoid and cynical view point which doesn't have any support given. Hence the requirement of a citation.
I'd be surprised if he can cite anything because he's full of it.
That's actually a myth, a person's reaction time starts to take a hit way before the person becomes unable to use an app like this. Unless of course it's poorly designed. Particularly for people who have developed a tolerance, they might look and speak fine, but the reaction time still isn't there to drive safely.
Sure that's the case for some drivers, but it's hardly the only ones. Somebody in that condition can at least stick to back streets and leave more room, they aren't necessarily that much more dangerous than the ones that aren't aware that they're inebriated.
Citation necessary. That's not entrapment. Whether they tell the public ahead of time that there will be DUI checkpoints or not it's not entrapment. It might be a violation of portions of the constitution at the state or federal level, but it's definitely not entrapment.
Google could pull the App, but let's be honest, even if they did, the actual barrier to installing it is practically non-existent. I'm sure a significant number of people using such an app are googling it anyways, this just makes it somewhat more convenient than having to sideload.
In other words, I don't think it's worth the hit to Google's integrity to pull an app like this.
That's what I was wondering about. In order to give the money right now, the carriers would have to divert funds from elsewhere or take on debt to make it happen. The delay, or at least part of it, has to do with the time it takes them to collect the money that's been pledged. Then there's the time it takes to disburse the money and so it can easily take at least a month or two even without dragging ones feet.
OTOH, with CC donations directly to the organization they get the money or or less immediately because you end up paying the interest if you don't pay on time.
The portion of an episode I saw they came to the conclusion that the weird feelings people were getting in that particular room were most likely because of the significant magnetic field emanating from electrical equipment a few feet away. When they don't gloss over more readily proven hypotheses to prove that there are ghosts, they deserve a lot more respect than those that are aiming to prove that ghosts are real even if they have to ignore more plausible explanations.
Some people do take it more seriously than others do, and as long as people believe in ghosts and we don't know absolutely everything about everything there's the potential for other interesting things to turn up when looking for ghosts. Selling devices to ghost hunters however is typically a scam unless the device is set up to detect something that's real and can be verified. How one interprets the results is a completely different matter.
They're both rip offs. I'm not a Christian, but I'm familiar enough with the theology to know that you get to Heaven based upon God's grace and not based upon actions which one performs in life, and certainly not based upon bribery. Camels and sewing needles being as they are.
Or at least that's the basic idea, it may or may not be true, and obviously I have a view on that if I don't practice. But any Christian that tries to say that you need to tithe or do certain things to get into Heaven should be recognized as representing something decidedly un-Christian.
I've been using a ball chair for a few years, cost me $80 or so, but it's been a really great improvement for my back. I do have to get up from time to time, but the strength of my abs has gotten so that I'm sitting upright with a natural curve to my spine.
Honestly, it depends a lot on what tasks you're doing. For many jobs it's little or no benefit, but for some jobs it does help a lot. When I'm working on art having a second monitor is a god send. Accountants often times like having a second monitor so that they can see all the columns and for those doing scheduling it's great.
I think at this point though it's getting to be more grey area as monitors are really wide and have higher resolution, splitting the monitor into smaller work spaces would at this point probably be more useful for most people.
Depends where the office is, if you're located in an office building you likely don't have just areas next to the windows, and I think that's what they're talking about there. Plus you don't get even light all day anyways. Around here the sun doesn't come up until fairly late in the morning and goes down early in the afternoon. So even if you do have a window during those periods its not terribly useful anyways.
I think the issue with the assertion is that it only applies to certain types of work. It's amazingly handy for somebody working on photo manipulation or graphic design to have one monitor showing the whole image and perhaps the toolbars and the other showing just the region that is being worked on.
Likewise it can be really helpful for a receptionist to have an email program going on one monitor and a word processing program going in the other.
With the advent of large monitors, a better solution for the latter would probably be to have a decent utility to split up the main screen, but I've yet to see one that really did a very good job of splitting one monitor into multiple logical monitors. X seems to do the best job, but there's complications there and that doesn't apply to Windows anyways.
Please stop spreading FUD. Do you have any actual evidence that the BSD license results in fewer contributions because it doesn't force people to contribute when they use the code? What I've seen out of GPL companies is that they can easily fulfill the terms of the GPL without contributing back to the original project. Nothing in the GPL requires them to send their patches back up stream, and companies like ASUS sometimes opt to fork and patch their own copy of the software rather than contribute back to the original. Sure there are reasons other than being cheap or dishonest, QA is a lot easier if you control the fork.
As far as GPL defending freedom, what a load. Just be honest about the fact that it only defends a subset of freedoms one could legitimately enjoy going with a public domain, BSD or MIT licensed project. Suggesting that it's in any way shape or form analogous to criminal offenses is just plain stupid.
That doesn't make GPL bad, what makes it bad in this situation is that it's pushed Apple to abandon Samba for use in OSX. Depending upon your point of view that may or many not be bad, but it means that the install base just shrunk up over the issue and that's not helpful in cases like this.
The project is free to choose whatever license it likes, but some licenses come with strings attached which impede the use of the software more than others.
I'm pretty sure what they do is just crack them. At this point I'm pretty sure they've got some way of putting older firmware on the devices, and Sony can't do anything about it. The Federal government tends to quash law suits about this sort of thing before they get anywhere.
Sony makes a profit on each PS3 they sell, after they stripped out the extra chips and found other ways to economize they do make money on each console they ship. Just the amount is tiny compared to what they make licensing games to run on it.
It's definitely an antitrust situation. Apple controls a substantial block of the portable music player and refuses to license out the scheme or allow others to enter the market to sell compliant tracks. According to the Wikipedia, the iPod line accounts for 90% of the HDD based portable music player market and 70% of the portable music player market over all. That's a significant portion of the market to be locking other people out of.
Despite the ironic tone of your post, yes it is indeed stifling competition. iPods make up a substantial portion of the portable music player market, and because of Fairplay they aren't available for services which allow all you can listen to plans protected by DRM, unless Apple provides it. Previously when iPods weren't the most popular portable music player, they were the only player that could use the ITMS without resorting to buning the songs to disc as an intermediary step. And that was a substantial benefit to Apple that did hurt the competition as a lot of the content was exclusive to the ITMS.
Because most illegal aliens are here illegally because the visa process is absurd.
However, 12 month is way to short a period time for something as serious as citizenship. It takes time for a person to adequately acculturate to the point where they can function independently in society. Or to demonstrate the commitment necessary to be a US citizen.
Countries which don't do that frequently end up with populations which are essentially disenfranchised sort of the way that blacks were after the civil war, but with the ability to vote. Which is a really bad situation for all involved.
As it is the process takes just shy of 5 years in most cases or just shy of 3 years in other cases.
Except that's not true. You can go quite far by dispatching reporters to the scene of breaking news, but you really need somebody at the capital every day that congress is in session and somebody just hanging out at the various town halls of major cities in case something happens. And that isn't cheap, but if you don't do it, you're going to miss important stories on a fairly regular basis.
Additionally, a lot of stories only come to light because of the competitive nature of the industry wanting to beat everybody else to the story so as to have something to rub their nose in.
MS for whatever reason rather than requiring companies to opt into silliness like patch Tuesdays and delayed updates forces it on everybody. The end result being that patches are held back for a period of time for everybody just so that the IT department of some corporation has time to test.
I realize why they want the time, but it's stupid and dangerous to apply that to everybody without any way of opting out. Most people do not have the resources to do that sort of extensive compatibility testing and would be better off just applying the patch.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not an opinion. It's a statement of fact. A statement which the particular person has to substantiate. There is no logical argument which can be inferred which backs up the original statement. Hence why there's a citation needed as the argument runs completely counter to the goals of both groups involved, as in reducing and eliminating dangerous crimes.
It's not common sense, which is the problem, it's a deeply paranoid and cynical view point which doesn't have any support given. Hence the requirement of a citation.
I'd be surprised if he can cite anything because he's full of it.
That's actually a myth, a person's reaction time starts to take a hit way before the person becomes unable to use an app like this. Unless of course it's poorly designed. Particularly for people who have developed a tolerance, they might look and speak fine, but the reaction time still isn't there to drive safely.
Sure that's the case for some drivers, but it's hardly the only ones. Somebody in that condition can at least stick to back streets and leave more room, they aren't necessarily that much more dangerous than the ones that aren't aware that they're inebriated.
Citation necessary. That's not entrapment. Whether they tell the public ahead of time that there will be DUI checkpoints or not it's not entrapment. It might be a violation of portions of the constitution at the state or federal level, but it's definitely not entrapment.
Entrapment
Google could pull the App, but let's be honest, even if they did, the actual barrier to installing it is practically non-existent. I'm sure a significant number of people using such an app are googling it anyways, this just makes it somewhat more convenient than having to sideload.
In other words, I don't think it's worth the hit to Google's integrity to pull an app like this.
Citation necessary.
That's what I was wondering about. In order to give the money right now, the carriers would have to divert funds from elsewhere or take on debt to make it happen. The delay, or at least part of it, has to do with the time it takes them to collect the money that's been pledged. Then there's the time it takes to disburse the money and so it can easily take at least a month or two even without dragging ones feet.
OTOH, with CC donations directly to the organization they get the money or or less immediately because you end up paying the interest if you don't pay on time.
The portion of an episode I saw they came to the conclusion that the weird feelings people were getting in that particular room were most likely because of the significant magnetic field emanating from electrical equipment a few feet away. When they don't gloss over more readily proven hypotheses to prove that there are ghosts, they deserve a lot more respect than those that are aiming to prove that ghosts are real even if they have to ignore more plausible explanations.
Some people do take it more seriously than others do, and as long as people believe in ghosts and we don't know absolutely everything about everything there's the potential for other interesting things to turn up when looking for ghosts. Selling devices to ghost hunters however is typically a scam unless the device is set up to detect something that's real and can be verified. How one interprets the results is a completely different matter.
They're both rip offs. I'm not a Christian, but I'm familiar enough with the theology to know that you get to Heaven based upon God's grace and not based upon actions which one performs in life, and certainly not based upon bribery. Camels and sewing needles being as they are.
Or at least that's the basic idea, it may or may not be true, and obviously I have a view on that if I don't practice. But any Christian that tries to say that you need to tithe or do certain things to get into Heaven should be recognized as representing something decidedly un-Christian.
I've been using a ball chair for a few years, cost me $80 or so, but it's been a really great improvement for my back. I do have to get up from time to time, but the strength of my abs has gotten so that I'm sitting upright with a natural curve to my spine.
Honestly, it depends a lot on what tasks you're doing. For many jobs it's little or no benefit, but for some jobs it does help a lot. When I'm working on art having a second monitor is a god send. Accountants often times like having a second monitor so that they can see all the columns and for those doing scheduling it's great.
I think at this point though it's getting to be more grey area as monitors are really wide and have higher resolution, splitting the monitor into smaller work spaces would at this point probably be more useful for most people.
Depends where the office is, if you're located in an office building you likely don't have just areas next to the windows, and I think that's what they're talking about there. Plus you don't get even light all day anyways. Around here the sun doesn't come up until fairly late in the morning and goes down early in the afternoon. So even if you do have a window during those periods its not terribly useful anyways.
I think the issue with the assertion is that it only applies to certain types of work. It's amazingly handy for somebody working on photo manipulation or graphic design to have one monitor showing the whole image and perhaps the toolbars and the other showing just the region that is being worked on.
Likewise it can be really helpful for a receptionist to have an email program going on one monitor and a word processing program going in the other.
With the advent of large monitors, a better solution for the latter would probably be to have a decent utility to split up the main screen, but I've yet to see one that really did a very good job of splitting one monitor into multiple logical monitors. X seems to do the best job, but there's complications there and that doesn't apply to Windows anyways.
Please stop spreading FUD. Do you have any actual evidence that the BSD license results in fewer contributions because it doesn't force people to contribute when they use the code? What I've seen out of GPL companies is that they can easily fulfill the terms of the GPL without contributing back to the original project. Nothing in the GPL requires them to send their patches back up stream, and companies like ASUS sometimes opt to fork and patch their own copy of the software rather than contribute back to the original. Sure there are reasons other than being cheap or dishonest, QA is a lot easier if you control the fork.
As far as GPL defending freedom, what a load. Just be honest about the fact that it only defends a subset of freedoms one could legitimately enjoy going with a public domain, BSD or MIT licensed project. Suggesting that it's in any way shape or form analogous to criminal offenses is just plain stupid.
That doesn't make GPL bad, what makes it bad in this situation is that it's pushed Apple to abandon Samba for use in OSX. Depending upon your point of view that may or many not be bad, but it means that the install base just shrunk up over the issue and that's not helpful in cases like this.
The project is free to choose whatever license it likes, but some licenses come with strings attached which impede the use of the software more than others.
I'm pretty sure what they do is just crack them. At this point I'm pretty sure they've got some way of putting older firmware on the devices, and Sony can't do anything about it. The Federal government tends to quash law suits about this sort of thing before they get anywhere.
Sony makes a profit on each PS3 they sell, after they stripped out the extra chips and found other ways to economize they do make money on each console they ship. Just the amount is tiny compared to what they make licensing games to run on it.
What word would you use to describe a company with a 90% market share in a given market? That market being HDD based portable music players.
It's definitely an antitrust situation. Apple controls a substantial block of the portable music player and refuses to license out the scheme or allow others to enter the market to sell compliant tracks. According to the Wikipedia, the iPod line accounts for 90% of the HDD based portable music player market and 70% of the portable music player market over all. That's a significant portion of the market to be locking other people out of.
iPod Sales
Despite the ironic tone of your post, yes it is indeed stifling competition. iPods make up a substantial portion of the portable music player market, and because of Fairplay they aren't available for services which allow all you can listen to plans protected by DRM, unless Apple provides it. Previously when iPods weren't the most popular portable music player, they were the only player that could use the ITMS without resorting to buning the songs to disc as an intermediary step. And that was a substantial benefit to Apple that did hurt the competition as a lot of the content was exclusive to the ITMS.
Because most illegal aliens are here illegally because the visa process is absurd.
However, 12 month is way to short a period time for something as serious as citizenship. It takes time for a person to adequately acculturate to the point where they can function independently in society. Or to demonstrate the commitment necessary to be a US citizen.
Countries which don't do that frequently end up with populations which are essentially disenfranchised sort of the way that blacks were after the civil war, but with the ability to vote. Which is a really bad situation for all involved.
As it is the process takes just shy of 5 years in most cases or just shy of 3 years in other cases.
I think the real good news is that he isn't the one having to do whatever stupid thing he's announcing.
I typically wear a condom. So far it's worked out fine.
Except that's not true. You can go quite far by dispatching reporters to the scene of breaking news, but you really need somebody at the capital every day that congress is in session and somebody just hanging out at the various town halls of major cities in case something happens. And that isn't cheap, but if you don't do it, you're going to miss important stories on a fairly regular basis.
Additionally, a lot of stories only come to light because of the competitive nature of the industry wanting to beat everybody else to the story so as to have something to rub their nose in.
MS for whatever reason rather than requiring companies to opt into silliness like patch Tuesdays and delayed updates forces it on everybody. The end result being that patches are held back for a period of time for everybody just so that the IT department of some corporation has time to test.
I realize why they want the time, but it's stupid and dangerous to apply that to everybody without any way of opting out. Most people do not have the resources to do that sort of extensive compatibility testing and would be better off just applying the patch.