SCOTUS regularly makes these sorts of mistakes. It's one of the reasons why they try to avoid overturning precedence and taking on controversial cases. They do from time to time take them on, but it sometimes ends badly. Such as when they appointed GWB President in 2000, ignoring what the constitution has to say on the matter or when they chose to ignore both the constitution and over 200 years of precedence in overturning the DC handgun ban without even citing precedent or explaining the new rules.
Endorsements aren't the same thing not even remotely. They're an attempt at guidance as to how to vote on an issue, they typically include an explanation as to why one ought to vote that way and are from a known source. Generally if you've read the NYT often enough to take its endorsement seriously, you've had the opportunity to figure out what bias there is and how to correct.
As opposed to the new wave of ads that this ruling allowed. There is no explanation, there is no easy way of knowing what the bias is or even really knowing who's really giving the money.
But your whole line about being "incredibly open to political abuse" is just a bullshit qualifier to justify your corporatist stance on the issue. Corporations already pressure their employees to vote the "right" way by making it publicly known that they might have to make lay offs if a piece of legislation passes.
But more to the point, that's something which the Republican party does to purposely disenfranchise voters. They kick up this fuss about the SEIU and ACORN as a way of justifying the terror that is voter fraud, even as they look the other way when it benefits them. We had a court case here stemming from the 2004 WA gubernatorial race where the Republican candidate lost by a handful of votes.
Endorsing isn't a problem. The problem is when outfits like Newscorp go out and manufacture scandals to support their candidates and drown out evidence to the contrary.
Doesn't stop it from happening though. What corporations typically do is catch some press threatening job cuts if whatever they don't like gets passed and I'd be shocked if that doesn't mysteriously increase the opposition to the measure in their ranks.
If you do that then you get a patchwork system of 50 states worth of regulations and the problems that come with both enforcing the regulations as well as keeping in compliance.
All you're doing is moving the influence peddling to the state level and probably not even making it more expensive.
I've argued for some time that one should be fiscally responsible not fiscally conservative. Eisenhower was fiscally responsible, managed to cut the debt significantly without cutting all the social supports that FDR had fought to get.
Regan, GHWB and GWB were fiscal conservatives. They were more than happy to throw as much money as they could at the military while cutting taxes for the rich and running up the national debt. Regan was at least willing to admit that his first round of tax cuts to the rich were too much and got them rolled back a bit.
That's a bullshit position to take. It's apathy, you could've voted for a third party candidate even if they weren't perfect. I'd wager that if all or even a significant number of people who felt that way voted for a third party candidate that there would be at least some change, probably not significant, but some.
Iraqis tried that as well during the first post Saddam election, and it didn't work out well for the ones that tried to boycott the election.
You're point is precisely what? Any corporation with cash to make serious donations spreads the money around as much as possible. It's not unusual for them to give money to both candidates in a given race just in case the other one loses.
To put it a different way, if you're wife's a whore, would you rather she give it up for anybody with a fiver or would you rather she held out for 6 figures?
To be honest, I'm a bit curious as to why anybody would want to use dosbox on their cell phone. Most of the apps and games I can think of have either been reimplemented already or aren't particularly well suited to the format.
Not quite, but they'd have to make a convincing argument that the name Dosbox infringes on their trademark. Which I don't think they can do to the relevant legal standard otherwise they would've done so a long time ago.
Money. But unless Apple loosens up quite a bit you're almost certainly going to start seeing a steady stream of developers focusing on other platforms and possibly porting or otherwise bringing their code to the iPhone last.
Previously it wasn't as much of an issue because the only serious competition was Blackberry,and I'm not sure that a lot of those apps would've worked on a Blackberry.
That's because in the US it's considered acceptable to accuse a politician of being both fascist and socialist at the same time. Both sides when you get far enough are completely nuts, but try comparing Naziism with Soviet Communism. The difference is significant.
That's been the case for well over a decade. Ever play Unreal multiplayer with just yourself and the bots? Those things would move and shoot in a way which a normal player couldn't. Admittedly I didn't play very often, but it was stupidly hard and kind of ruined the fun of it.
Programming reasonable bots for multiplayer is hard, but there's been very little progress made since they started putting them into the games.
Indeed, I've spent quite a bit of time with the new Fallout, and it's been quite challenging. I'm nowhere near finishing the main quest and there's still tons of side quests and achievements I can go through.
FPS and RTS tend to end up as dick contests if you're not playing against people you know. Also they're really dependent upon the server set up for multiplayer if you want something competitive.
Doubtful. They're spending more money on the graphics and voice talent than they used to. On top of that the standards of what is acceptable these days is much higher. The levels we have today are much larger than what they used to be. Back when I was first gaming, the largest games I can recall were the Oregon Trail and that Muppets game on the Apple ][. Those were quite short and the latter had to fit the mini games on a single screen. I can't recall the size of the floppy, but those 3.5" disks later on dwarfed them in capacity.
So how do you get better if you die every few seconds?
Good games have a mechanism for dealing with that. Few people if any think that it's fun to get blasted immediately, most people do however enjoy a challenge. Not sure about FPS games, but I know that some games do have a ranking system to try to match people up so that the game could go either way.
I doubt there's a reason for it in that sense. Things which don't hurt our capability to reproduce tend to just hang around until such time as they do hurt our chances to reproduce. It could for all we know just be a minor glitch causing the cells to migrate in a way which isn't necessary.
I mean why do some people have trouble smelling sulfur and others don't. Why do some people retain the ability to wiggle their ears while others don't. Or for that matter have ear lobes. None of those things are particularly make or break it in the current environment, but who knows maybe if things change they'll be more important.
That's a really, really great way to run yourself out of business. Sure they'll be able to get away with it in the short term as in this economy few people are going to say no to a job offer from Oracle, but in the long run it will hurt them.
Institutional knowledge is invaluable as is developing talent internally. You hire somebody that best fits your needs and has the best qualifications you can get, but that isn't where a good company stops. A good company develops the new hires as much as possible to try and get as much as possible out of the deal.
It's still a stupid business move. If they were just buying IP then at very least they're throwing out a few really desirable freebies. Henry Ford was noted for insisting that his parts be packaged in a way that was specifically designed to be reused in production. And he spun off the scraps to his Kingsford unit for sale as charcoal briquettes.
This would probably explain why Larry Ellison will never, ever be Bill Gates. Sure he kicks sand in the faces of smaller players like Bill, but he lacks the understanding of business to really make it work.
Indeed. And there's a reason for it. Creative people tend to not get along well with more concrete thinkers. It's probably the thing about Steve Jobs that amazes me more than anything else. The way that he's able to, for the most part, work with the engineers to produce something.
But more than that it's not easy being creative, it doesn't just happen. Which is a lie, creativity does indeed just happen, it's just that creativity that relates to something useful in the near term requires a lot of effort. And for the most part firms that have that reputation have done something horribly wrong which stifles the creative juices.
Probably because the Chinese steal our IP and are shit when it comes to productivity and actually making safe products. They don't ship jobs to China in order to create a high quality product, they do it because they aren't inspected while producing and most of the shoddy standards can be slipped by.
Won't happen. Google hasn't got a case, they used what is now Oracle's trademark to refer to something that isn't the Java language as the Java language. The best Google can do is settle it out of court.
Sigh, and that's why capitalism in the US is such a failed experiment. How long do you think that a tech company can manage with the talent fleeing? They might get something out of the deal, but ultimately this isn't good for their bottom line. Additionally, they need to retain the money they paid plus make more in order for it to be profitable.
Looking with a time frame of only a quarter is not the way to ever build a lasting corporation that isn't reliant upon corporate welfare and legislative protectionism.
Perhaps that's a compelling reason not to allow corporations to get that big. MS has in the past caused damage to the world just by existing. I doubt it's the case any more, but there was a time when they employed a significant portion of the world's best physicists.
Slashdot Mirror
SCOTUS regularly makes these sorts of mistakes. It's one of the reasons why they try to avoid overturning precedence and taking on controversial cases. They do from time to time take them on, but it sometimes ends badly. Such as when they appointed GWB President in 2000, ignoring what the constitution has to say on the matter or when they chose to ignore both the constitution and over 200 years of precedence in overturning the DC handgun ban without even citing precedent or explaining the new rules.
That's bullshit and you ought to know it.
Endorsements aren't the same thing not even remotely. They're an attempt at guidance as to how to vote on an issue, they typically include an explanation as to why one ought to vote that way and are from a known source. Generally if you've read the NYT often enough to take its endorsement seriously, you've had the opportunity to figure out what bias there is and how to correct.
As opposed to the new wave of ads that this ruling allowed. There is no explanation, there is no easy way of knowing what the bias is or even really knowing who's really giving the money.
But your whole line about being "incredibly open to political abuse" is just a bullshit qualifier to justify your corporatist stance on the issue. Corporations already pressure their employees to vote the "right" way by making it publicly known that they might have to make lay offs if a piece of legislation passes.
But more to the point, that's something which the Republican party does to purposely disenfranchise voters. They kick up this fuss about the SEIU and ACORN as a way of justifying the terror that is voter fraud, even as they look the other way when it benefits them. We had a court case here stemming from the 2004 WA gubernatorial race where the Republican candidate lost by a handful of votes.
Endorsing isn't a problem. The problem is when outfits like Newscorp go out and manufacture scandals to support their candidates and drown out evidence to the contrary.
Doesn't stop it from happening though. What corporations typically do is catch some press threatening job cuts if whatever they don't like gets passed and I'd be shocked if that doesn't mysteriously increase the opposition to the measure in their ranks.
If you do that then you get a patchwork system of 50 states worth of regulations and the problems that come with both enforcing the regulations as well as keeping in compliance.
All you're doing is moving the influence peddling to the state level and probably not even making it more expensive.
I've argued for some time that one should be fiscally responsible not fiscally conservative. Eisenhower was fiscally responsible, managed to cut the debt significantly without cutting all the social supports that FDR had fought to get.
Regan, GHWB and GWB were fiscal conservatives. They were more than happy to throw as much money as they could at the military while cutting taxes for the rich and running up the national debt. Regan was at least willing to admit that his first round of tax cuts to the rich were too much and got them rolled back a bit.
That's a bullshit position to take. It's apathy, you could've voted for a third party candidate even if they weren't perfect. I'd wager that if all or even a significant number of people who felt that way voted for a third party candidate that there would be at least some change, probably not significant, but some.
Iraqis tried that as well during the first post Saddam election, and it didn't work out well for the ones that tried to boycott the election.
You're point is precisely what? Any corporation with cash to make serious donations spreads the money around as much as possible. It's not unusual for them to give money to both candidates in a given race just in case the other one loses.
To put it a different way, if you're wife's a whore, would you rather she give it up for anybody with a fiver or would you rather she held out for 6 figures?
Indeed, I thought that pretty much everybody that was into that sort of thing had already switched over to torrents.
To be honest, I'm a bit curious as to why anybody would want to use dosbox on their cell phone. Most of the apps and games I can think of have either been reimplemented already or aren't particularly well suited to the format.
Not quite, but they'd have to make a convincing argument that the name Dosbox infringes on their trademark. Which I don't think they can do to the relevant legal standard otherwise they would've done so a long time ago.
Money. But unless Apple loosens up quite a bit you're almost certainly going to start seeing a steady stream of developers focusing on other platforms and possibly porting or otherwise bringing their code to the iPhone last.
Previously it wasn't as much of an issue because the only serious competition was Blackberry,and I'm not sure that a lot of those apps would've worked on a Blackberry.
That's because in the US it's considered acceptable to accuse a politician of being both fascist and socialist at the same time. Both sides when you get far enough are completely nuts, but try comparing Naziism with Soviet Communism. The difference is significant.
That's been the case for well over a decade. Ever play Unreal multiplayer with just yourself and the bots? Those things would move and shoot in a way which a normal player couldn't. Admittedly I didn't play very often, but it was stupidly hard and kind of ruined the fun of it.
Programming reasonable bots for multiplayer is hard, but there's been very little progress made since they started putting them into the games.
Indeed, I've spent quite a bit of time with the new Fallout, and it's been quite challenging. I'm nowhere near finishing the main quest and there's still tons of side quests and achievements I can go through.
FPS and RTS tend to end up as dick contests if you're not playing against people you know. Also they're really dependent upon the server set up for multiplayer if you want something competitive.
Doubtful. They're spending more money on the graphics and voice talent than they used to. On top of that the standards of what is acceptable these days is much higher. The levels we have today are much larger than what they used to be. Back when I was first gaming, the largest games I can recall were the Oregon Trail and that Muppets game on the Apple ][. Those were quite short and the latter had to fit the mini games on a single screen. I can't recall the size of the floppy, but those 3.5" disks later on dwarfed them in capacity.
So how do you get better if you die every few seconds?
Good games have a mechanism for dealing with that. Few people if any think that it's fun to get blasted immediately, most people do however enjoy a challenge. Not sure about FPS games, but I know that some games do have a ranking system to try to match people up so that the game could go either way.
I doubt there's a reason for it in that sense. Things which don't hurt our capability to reproduce tend to just hang around until such time as they do hurt our chances to reproduce. It could for all we know just be a minor glitch causing the cells to migrate in a way which isn't necessary.
I mean why do some people have trouble smelling sulfur and others don't. Why do some people retain the ability to wiggle their ears while others don't. Or for that matter have ear lobes. None of those things are particularly make or break it in the current environment, but who knows maybe if things change they'll be more important.
That's a really, really great way to run yourself out of business. Sure they'll be able to get away with it in the short term as in this economy few people are going to say no to a job offer from Oracle, but in the long run it will hurt them.
Institutional knowledge is invaluable as is developing talent internally. You hire somebody that best fits your needs and has the best qualifications you can get, but that isn't where a good company stops. A good company develops the new hires as much as possible to try and get as much as possible out of the deal.
It's still a stupid business move. If they were just buying IP then at very least they're throwing out a few really desirable freebies. Henry Ford was noted for insisting that his parts be packaged in a way that was specifically designed to be reused in production. And he spun off the scraps to his Kingsford unit for sale as charcoal briquettes.
This would probably explain why Larry Ellison will never, ever be Bill Gates. Sure he kicks sand in the faces of smaller players like Bill, but he lacks the understanding of business to really make it work.
Indeed. And there's a reason for it. Creative people tend to not get along well with more concrete thinkers. It's probably the thing about Steve Jobs that amazes me more than anything else. The way that he's able to, for the most part, work with the engineers to produce something.
But more than that it's not easy being creative, it doesn't just happen. Which is a lie, creativity does indeed just happen, it's just that creativity that relates to something useful in the near term requires a lot of effort. And for the most part firms that have that reputation have done something horribly wrong which stifles the creative juices.
Probably because the Chinese steal our IP and are shit when it comes to productivity and actually making safe products. They don't ship jobs to China in order to create a high quality product, they do it because they aren't inspected while producing and most of the shoddy standards can be slipped by.
Won't happen. Google hasn't got a case, they used what is now Oracle's trademark to refer to something that isn't the Java language as the Java language. The best Google can do is settle it out of court.
Sigh, and that's why capitalism in the US is such a failed experiment. How long do you think that a tech company can manage with the talent fleeing? They might get something out of the deal, but ultimately this isn't good for their bottom line. Additionally, they need to retain the money they paid plus make more in order for it to be profitable.
Looking with a time frame of only a quarter is not the way to ever build a lasting corporation that isn't reliant upon corporate welfare and legislative protectionism.
Perhaps that's a compelling reason not to allow corporations to get that big. MS has in the past caused damage to the world just by existing. I doubt it's the case any more, but there was a time when they employed a significant portion of the world's best physicists.