The problem with research is primarily one of funding. There's a lot of great research that doesn't happen because the funding isn't there. Take stem cell research, a bunch of yokels decide that it's immoral so the funding is drastically reduce. Irony is that the same yokels that decided that stem cell research is murder think that it's A-OK to deliberately create and destroy embryos for IVF procedures that aren't really necessary in the first place and contribute little to society. And then destroy the extra embryos.
But more than that there's subjects like sexual abuse and domestic violence which get distorted because researchers are limited in what aspects they're able to get funded. It's significantly harder to get money to study male victims or female perpetrators because it's politically inconvenient for something that runs so counter the orthodoxy.
Collaborating on papers which aren't handed out as collaborative papers is definitely cheating. What concerns me more is the implication that some US schools don't think that's cheating.
Likewise, school work is to be done on ones own, except where indicated as a group task or in cases where one needs it explained.
That's mostly because there aren't many jobs to be had right now. In general you're not correct though, there's plenty of places that aren't MS and aren't MS shops either.
Actually, the IRS has a better record of gaining compliance to tax laws than pretty much any equivalent body in any other nation. And the USPS has managed for quite some time to keep the rate of rate increases under the rate of inflation.
I don't really think those are particularly good examples of what you're intending to say.
Actually, you've got that backwards, deregulated sectors typically come with a much higher barrier to entry as the players already there have typically built themselves an impenetrable fortress against anybody entering the sector.
Regulated sectors tend not to have that happen as the first thing that regulators like to do is put into place measures that make companies actually compete.
Google is a monopoly because there is currently no better alternative. Altavista was a monopoly for exactly the same reasons, until Google came along.
Try the competition, IMHO they aren't any worse either. The main advantage that Google has over them is more hardware and more sweeps across the net. Which for many things is an advantage, but most of the information that people are looking for is at least a few days old.
I'd recommend trying it. Google isn't anywhere near as far ahead of the competition as folks believe. They've got a tenuous lead over the competition built primarily on having more hardware and more mindshare than the competition. I've just switched over to duckduckgo as an experiment and so far it seems to be doing at least as well as Google has been.
As much as I dislike MS, the reality is that Bing is really not a bad search engine. Which is typical of MS their products in areas that they don't control are frequently quite good, it's not until they own the market that the products start to really suck. There are exceptions like their mobile software platform, but it tends to hold up fairly well.
Admittedly this is anecdotal, but when I was using Bing for my searches I didn't notice any more of a skew than I did with Google. At this point with Google the first page or so is typically crap. Link farms regularly appear in the first page, as do sites which ask for a donation to see the information while including it at the very bottom so that they're technically in compliance with Google policy.
In short Google doesn't have a better product. In fact the use of their dumb algorithm to do the searches has probably set the industry back several years. The reason people started using them was that they were fast and provided more relevant searches more quickly. The problem is that they did it by not even bothering to attempt to analyze the sites.
You also have to compete with muscle memory and browser settings. Even for those that want to switch over, it takes some determination as one tends to go back to whatever it is that one was doing.
Credit accelerates the problem. Because it tends towards a cumulative effect. As you gain assets you have both more control over the market, enabling you to more easily service the loans, and more to put up as collateral.
You are however correct, that even without credit you would still see the same pattern, albeit much more slowly.
Chrome won't use h.264, I can pretty much guarantee you that much. No free browser is going to include it unless the party making it free is willing to be on the hook for royalties or they include somebody else's codec for it.
I'd personally be very surprised if Google was willing to pay the licensing fee to use h.264. Remember that h.264 isn't free for use, it's only free to stream the encoded files to somebody who then decodes them. Neither the party encoding nor the party decoding gets to do so for free without infringing upon the MPEG-LA property.
There's no caution involved, Mozilla would have to license the patents. h.264 is only free for streaming, that does not include the encoding or decoding. They just refrain from charging you again to stream the encoded streams.
I'm wondering at what point a retailer ought to be responsible for the breach. It seems to me that whatever the consequences of that sort of irresponsibility is, that it's not enough. There's absolutely no reason why they need to have an internal CC database. They could just as easily hash the CC information and compare that with a stored hash.
Not really, most of the times I've seen it's been pretty lacking. Meaning that they're using evidence which is easily forged, allowing for time travel conspiracy theories and generally abusing the process.
Indeed. Just look at the console market new, versus when just after the latest round of consoles were released. It looked very different, but somehow, the Wii, XBox 360 and PS3 are all still around and doing fine.
What apple did was essentially the next logical step forward. The Appstore is really the equivalent of their ITMS which was a success. Touch screens have been coming for sometime. It was ballsy of them to eliminate nearly all the buttons, but the individual components for the iPhone were already there.
It's not really that different from when they introduced their iPod. It was built on other people's work put together in a new way, and ultimately they were successfully sued by Creative for ripping off their IP.
Actually, there was no reason to rename the Zune. It was only a failure in the commercial sense. The hardware and concept were actually quite good. While I only know two people who own them, both were quite pleased and from what I could see of it the device worked well.
With the Kin, I think the biggest problem was that they were aiming it at a market which doesn't exist and they gave up before it did. The way that Apple came to be so closely linked to portable music is that they waited until the market formed, then ripped off the interface from Creative, slapped on a different input scheme and made it white. After that it was marketing from there on out.
It takes two parties to engage in bipartisan politics. What you're suggesting is just complete asinine rubbish. The President went way out of his way to include the GOP in the process, and they opted to shut things down anyways. By design he doesn't have any good ways of forcing the opposition party to do it's part to do things in a bipartisan fashion.
I'm glad I'm not the only one noticing the irony. Ms. Palin has been really supportive of the NSA's illegal wiretap program. I'm not sure what she thinks the problem is that it was her stuff being accessed or that it wasn't an NSA goon doing it for her protection.
That's how that works. Whenever there's a range of possible sentences, the prosecutors tend to seek tougher sentences when they value the victim than when they don't. It's both human nature as well as the natural consequence of how our judicial system is set up. It's easier to get a death sentence if the victim is valued by the jury than if it's just some random homeless person.
I thought Ms. Palin was in favor of having her messages spied on. Oh, wait, she's only in favor of the government doing it "for her own protection." Yes, the same government that she wants to eliminate for being untrustworthy.
Except that Kanye was actually onto something for once. The Bush administration didn't take hurricane Katrina seriously, and previous administrations hadn't taken the levee situation seriously. But ultimately, Bush failed to provide the sort of leadership during that which was necessary.
As opposed to the gulf spill during which there was little that any sitting President could do, as virtually all the experts on offshore drilling work for oil companies. But, I'm sure that you'd be perfectly fine with President Obama ordering around private sector entities which aren't employed by the government, right?
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with research is primarily one of funding. There's a lot of great research that doesn't happen because the funding isn't there. Take stem cell research, a bunch of yokels decide that it's immoral so the funding is drastically reduce. Irony is that the same yokels that decided that stem cell research is murder think that it's A-OK to deliberately create and destroy embryos for IVF procedures that aren't really necessary in the first place and contribute little to society. And then destroy the extra embryos.
But more than that there's subjects like sexual abuse and domestic violence which get distorted because researchers are limited in what aspects they're able to get funded. It's significantly harder to get money to study male victims or female perpetrators because it's politically inconvenient for something that runs so counter the orthodoxy.
Collaborating on papers which aren't handed out as collaborative papers is definitely cheating. What concerns me more is the implication that some US schools don't think that's cheating.
Likewise, school work is to be done on ones own, except where indicated as a group task or in cases where one needs it explained.
That's mostly because there aren't many jobs to be had right now. In general you're not correct though, there's plenty of places that aren't MS and aren't MS shops either.
Actually, the IRS has a better record of gaining compliance to tax laws than pretty much any equivalent body in any other nation. And the USPS has managed for quite some time to keep the rate of rate increases under the rate of inflation.
I don't really think those are particularly good examples of what you're intending to say.
Actually, you've got that backwards, deregulated sectors typically come with a much higher barrier to entry as the players already there have typically built themselves an impenetrable fortress against anybody entering the sector.
Regulated sectors tend not to have that happen as the first thing that regulators like to do is put into place measures that make companies actually compete.
Google is a monopoly because there is currently no better alternative. Altavista was a monopoly for exactly the same reasons, until Google came along.
Try the competition, IMHO they aren't any worse either. The main advantage that Google has over them is more hardware and more sweeps across the net. Which for many things is an advantage, but most of the information that people are looking for is at least a few days old.
I'd recommend trying it. Google isn't anywhere near as far ahead of the competition as folks believe. They've got a tenuous lead over the competition built primarily on having more hardware and more mindshare than the competition. I've just switched over to duckduckgo as an experiment and so far it seems to be doing at least as well as Google has been.
As much as I dislike MS, the reality is that Bing is really not a bad search engine. Which is typical of MS their products in areas that they don't control are frequently quite good, it's not until they own the market that the products start to really suck. There are exceptions like their mobile software platform, but it tends to hold up fairly well.
Admittedly this is anecdotal, but when I was using Bing for my searches I didn't notice any more of a skew than I did with Google. At this point with Google the first page or so is typically crap. Link farms regularly appear in the first page, as do sites which ask for a donation to see the information while including it at the very bottom so that they're technically in compliance with Google policy.
In short Google doesn't have a better product. In fact the use of their dumb algorithm to do the searches has probably set the industry back several years. The reason people started using them was that they were fast and provided more relevant searches more quickly. The problem is that they did it by not even bothering to attempt to analyze the sites.
You also have to compete with muscle memory and browser settings. Even for those that want to switch over, it takes some determination as one tends to go back to whatever it is that one was doing.
Credit accelerates the problem. Because it tends towards a cumulative effect. As you gain assets you have both more control over the market, enabling you to more easily service the loans, and more to put up as collateral.
You are however correct, that even without credit you would still see the same pattern, albeit much more slowly.
Chrome won't use h.264, I can pretty much guarantee you that much. No free browser is going to include it unless the party making it free is willing to be on the hook for royalties or they include somebody else's codec for it.
I'd personally be very surprised if Google was willing to pay the licensing fee to use h.264. Remember that h.264 isn't free for use, it's only free to stream the encoded files to somebody who then decodes them. Neither the party encoding nor the party decoding gets to do so for free without infringing upon the MPEG-LA property.
There's no caution involved, Mozilla would have to license the patents. h.264 is only free for streaming, that does not include the encoding or decoding. They just refrain from charging you again to stream the encoded streams.
I'm wondering at what point a retailer ought to be responsible for the breach. It seems to me that whatever the consequences of that sort of irresponsibility is, that it's not enough. There's absolutely no reason why they need to have an internal CC database. They could just as easily hash the CC information and compare that with a stored hash.
Not really, most of the times I've seen it's been pretty lacking. Meaning that they're using evidence which is easily forged, allowing for time travel conspiracy theories and generally abusing the process.
Yeah, but do you have any idea how quickly batteries die when attached to nipple shock clips?
Indeed. Just look at the console market new, versus when just after the latest round of consoles were released. It looked very different, but somehow, the Wii, XBox 360 and PS3 are all still around and doing fine.
What apple did was essentially the next logical step forward. The Appstore is really the equivalent of their ITMS which was a success. Touch screens have been coming for sometime. It was ballsy of them to eliminate nearly all the buttons, but the individual components for the iPhone were already there.
It's not really that different from when they introduced their iPod. It was built on other people's work put together in a new way, and ultimately they were successfully sued by Creative for ripping off their IP.
Actually, there was no reason to rename the Zune. It was only a failure in the commercial sense. The hardware and concept were actually quite good. While I only know two people who own them, both were quite pleased and from what I could see of it the device worked well.
With the Kin, I think the biggest problem was that they were aiming it at a market which doesn't exist and they gave up before it did. The way that Apple came to be so closely linked to portable music is that they waited until the market formed, then ripped off the interface from Creative, slapped on a different input scheme and made it white. After that it was marketing from there on out.
It takes two parties to engage in bipartisan politics. What you're suggesting is just complete asinine rubbish. The President went way out of his way to include the GOP in the process, and they opted to shut things down anyways. By design he doesn't have any good ways of forcing the opposition party to do it's part to do things in a bipartisan fashion.
I'm glad I'm not the only one noticing the irony. Ms. Palin has been really supportive of the NSA's illegal wiretap program. I'm not sure what she thinks the problem is that it was her stuff being accessed or that it wasn't an NSA goon doing it for her protection.
That's how that works. Whenever there's a range of possible sentences, the prosecutors tend to seek tougher sentences when they value the victim than when they don't. It's both human nature as well as the natural consequence of how our judicial system is set up. It's easier to get a death sentence if the victim is valued by the jury than if it's just some random homeless person.
I thought Ms. Palin was in favor of having her messages spied on. Oh, wait, she's only in favor of the government doing it "for her own protection." Yes, the same government that she wants to eliminate for being untrustworthy.
That might be, but considering that Google has advertised the language as "the Java language" it's an honest enough mistake.
Except that Kanye was actually onto something for once. The Bush administration didn't take hurricane Katrina seriously, and previous administrations hadn't taken the levee situation seriously. But ultimately, Bush failed to provide the sort of leadership during that which was necessary.
As opposed to the gulf spill during which there was little that any sitting President could do, as virtually all the experts on offshore drilling work for oil companies. But, I'm sure that you'd be perfectly fine with President Obama ordering around private sector entities which aren't employed by the government, right?