That's the thing about empathy. It isn't a blind concern for somebody not getting what they wanted, it's concern about someone not getting what they need. I admit that I have a hard time with empathy, but with all the abuse I personally suffered and the more or less complete lack of it in others, it's amazing I have any. Empathy requires both personal suffering as well as a comprehension of it.
Yes, but this does allow the game to be more readily available on other architectures. Personally, if I get time, I'd like to see about porting it to freebsd.
That's wasteful when a less measure like not wasting water in areas where people don't have a lot to spare would work. I do hope the experimental wave powered desalination plant works, but for the time being the best bet is to just not waste water on stupid things in areas where there isn't a lot to go around. Wasting water in most of the US isn't much of an issue since most of our water flows past us directly to an ocean. We're lucky in that way having to worry mostly about the effect it has on our local ecosystem rather than on somebody else's country. Except in cases where we're having water essentially shipped in to our country most of our water wasting has no impact on other people.
Except in this case where we're using water in China to make processors, that's definitely affecting other nations. Well, at least one other nation.
That's not particularly realistic. In much of the world the location you're describing is coastal and on the side of the coast where the wind would be likely to carry the radioactive fallout across a continent. Never mind places which are actually upstream of somebody else. The East Coast of the US would be perfect, except for the fact that there's a huge number of people living there. Likewise, China would have a similar issue as most of their major cities or on their eastern coast as well.
That's the way it works. We could've had proper single payer universal healthcare coverage, but we're paying for two pointless wars instead. We could have proper banking reform, but probably won't since ZOMG teh Soshulists. And we can't have this because a large part of American stubbornly refuses that corporatists don't care about their interests. Even though the ones that are hurt the worse by this are the same rural voters that refuse to recognize what their politicians are doing to the country.
That's the thing, in general religion isn't supposed to be in scientific papers really at all. Or any commentary that's not relevant to the study. Likewise people in civil society don't talk about religion at work because it causes problems. When you put those two things together, of course scientists aren't going to be talking a lot about that in the field. It's a cultural norm in most parts of the developed world not to talk about those things at work.
Now, if you're a scientist that's looking for funding to try and demonstrate something religious in nature, you're probably going to have trouble getting funding. But that's hardly discrimination unless you can put a really good explanation as to the what, why and how of your study.
It's not a silly argument at all. It's the difference between delusion and a sunny disposition. Choosing to believe what a religion says even when there's clear incontrovertible evidence to the contrary is more or less mental illness, not a legitimate religious belief. One can legitimately claim that there's a god for the simple reason that we can't prove that there isn't to any reasonable certainty.
It's that viewpoint which tends to cause scientists to clam up about religion rather than necessarily any reason to hide it. I went to a very liberal school and a significant number of my professors were practicing Catholics. Perhaps it's a biased sample, but I can't imagine them saying they were at such a liberal institution if they were feeling it would damage their careers.
It's a problem of implementation. Few sites disclose that they're wanting to do it, and I had no idea until I installed noscript and started to have to enable a huge number of sites to view what should be relatively simple ones. On top of which each one can have vulnerabilities. I'm not suggesting that you were wrong, there are definite reasons why centralization is asking for trouble. But by the same token, I don't think the companies engaging in that process are as transparent, honest and responsible about it as they need to be.
Because he's using in non-literally. The CDNs don't provide a service to the people that have to put up with them in most cases. It personally pisses me off to have to loosen up so thoroughly on noscript for a website to be even able to figure out if I want to see the content. Worse is that few sites if any actually disclose what sites they allow to connect in that fashion meaning that you don't necessarily know whether a particular site is meant to be loading content. It's just an easy way of them losing your information then not being responsible for the consequences.
That's incredibly inaccurate. So how about one that's about cars. Say you have your choice of two cars. One is reliable works well in the snow but costs 30k. Now say that the other one is somewhat unreliable and dubious in the snow, but it costs only 20k. The implication you're making is that you would ignore the lesser quality and save the money. The problem though is that you're giving something up in order to get the cheaper price and if you're in an area that has a lot of snow, the cheaper car could very easily cost you 10k on missed work alone.
Outsourced labor is much the same way. Nobody is as productive as American workers are, the only country that comes close to us is Norway and they've got a small enough population that we're not in any trouble from them. Chinese and Indian labor looks a lot worse when you factor in the externalities like pissing off your customers with poor support, heavy metal laden goods and flat out shoddy quality. Sure there are exceptions, but you have to pay more for them which largely defeats the purpose of going off shore.
Off screen is a bad idea. My Nexus One can change orientation based upon it's physical orientation, there isn't really anywhere on the device where you could put it where it would be both out of the way and off screen. And I don't like the idea of them limiting the directions in which I can turn it because then I have to use the hand to control it that they tell me to or face the problems above.
Yes, the people that built a mouse with only one button are surely the people that you want designing everything else. They've gotten better, but let's be honest about something, most of their ideas were stolen from elsewhere. The iPod interface with the buttons excepted, was a complete rip off of what Creative had already been shipping. The iPhone is great, as long as you don't need buttons and don't want to do something that Apple doesn't like. It's easy to put together reliable and efficient products if you prevent the user from doing things that are hard to design for.
Apple's interest is to make the hugest profit possible. And that's definitely not something that's ever been helped by competition. Competition is what helps people on the demand side of the equation, not the supply.
I don't know about you, but I expect the police to provide security, as well as the military and intelligence agencies. They don't provide complete security, but they do go quite a ways. Computer security is like that. On top of that comes personal and community responsibility.
Umm, this isn't a particularly new license. It's basically the BSD license plus a license for the patents. The patent license is free so long as none of the bits of the format infringe upon somebody else's patent. It's about as simple a license as you can expect, and definitely as simple as you can get while providing patents.
Yes, iIt basically means that you're free to use the patent as long as some other party doesn't have a claim to a patent required to make use of it. The GPL does not allow you to put requirements on a third party that isn't a party to the license. As such, I highly doubt that it doesn't comply with the GPLv3 in that respect. It is irrevocable from Google's perspective, they can't revoke it unless somebody else first finds that the code violates their patent.
The format itself isn't the issue that can be fully documented without the source. However the implementation is what's important. Well that and the patent. Both of which are being provided.
Isn't it a Tad ironic that a non-science which engages in that sort of confirmation bias "research" is responsible for an article telling us why people do that?
OTOH science isn't perfect due to the lack of granularity in studies not everything can be accounted for and as such it isn't always the best answer. The gambler's fallacy springs to my mind. Or really the unfounded assumption that factors outside the game have negligible impact and each possibility is equally likely. Neither of which are ever justified outside of theoretical scenarios.
Because you can't copyright gameplay. You could theoretically patent it, but trademarks don't apply to that either. And given that the app doesn't use the word "Tetris" anywhere in it one can only assume that the trolls at The Tetris Company, LLC are confusing the terms. Not that they've even tried to get it patented as those would already be expired in pretty much any jurisdiction by now.
At least in the US you're allowed to use the trademark in referring to the original item. So regardless of what Apple might like you can use iPod, iPad, iMac all you like as long as you refer to their product. Likewise in this case regardless of what this outfit might think saying that something is a clone of the classic game Tetris is completely legal. It's not within the domain of trademark law to prevent that. At least not in the US.
But that's trademarks, not copyright, how they think that they can use the DMCA to enforce that is beyond me. The DMCA only applies to the copyright not trademark.
This isn't really a walled garden, had Google not taken it down and it gone to court then they could've been liable for infringement themselves. The DMCA safe harbor provision is frequently abused in this manner. It doesn't matter whether or not Google approves apps before they go in, by hosting the content they would otherwise be liable for possible infringement.
Sigh, I'm not sure where that rumor got started. They don't claim to be untouchable otherwise why would they be advertising an insurance policy included with service? They pay the first I think it's 2 million of fraudulent activities if they're unable to get it fixed so that you aren't charged for them. I doubt very much that they'd include that if they were really untouchable. Not saying that I trust them or use them, but we should at least be telling the truth about it.
Why it is that we allow them to think that they own that information is beyond me. The information belongs to the person to which it applies. I should have complete control over how it's used and who gets to see it. There certainly shouldn't be anybody looking at it without my requesting a product or service which requires a credit check. But I'm sure the ZOMG corporations being held accountable people will tell me that it's completely my fault if they lose my personal information like TD Ameritrade did. Because obviously I should've known that they'd buy out my brokerage firm and fail to properly secure my contact information.
I'm not surprised they'd be doing this with malaria drugs given who they're targeting with them they're not particularly profitable. I wouldn't be surprised if they try this with antibiotics next. Neither set of drugs are particularly profitable and are done mainly as a community service.
You've more or less hit on it. MS has to find new markets in order to grow any larger, they've got something like 90% of the desktop OS market. Even if they were to grow and fill out more or less all of that, you're still talking about probably an 8 or 9% increase. The cost of doing that would almost certainly outweigh any actual revenue growth. Things like Zune, Bing and XBox are ways in which they're trying to grow into new markets. But at heart MS has always been a software company.
Whereas Apple has pretty much always been a hardware company that sells software on the side. These days there's an awful lot of hardware left to invent and sell, hence why Apple is growing. But it's hardly a matter of them beating MS in any meaningful way. Apple still hasn't made much in the way of inroads into MS' domain of office and OS. And it could be a long time if they ever manage it.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the thing about empathy. It isn't a blind concern for somebody not getting what they wanted, it's concern about someone not getting what they need. I admit that I have a hard time with empathy, but with all the abuse I personally suffered and the more or less complete lack of it in others, it's amazing I have any. Empathy requires both personal suffering as well as a comprehension of it.
Yes, but this does allow the game to be more readily available on other architectures. Personally, if I get time, I'd like to see about porting it to freebsd.
That's wasteful when a less measure like not wasting water in areas where people don't have a lot to spare would work. I do hope the experimental wave powered desalination plant works, but for the time being the best bet is to just not waste water on stupid things in areas where there isn't a lot to go around. Wasting water in most of the US isn't much of an issue since most of our water flows past us directly to an ocean. We're lucky in that way having to worry mostly about the effect it has on our local ecosystem rather than on somebody else's country. Except in cases where we're having water essentially shipped in to our country most of our water wasting has no impact on other people.
Except in this case where we're using water in China to make processors, that's definitely affecting other nations. Well, at least one other nation.
That's not particularly realistic. In much of the world the location you're describing is coastal and on the side of the coast where the wind would be likely to carry the radioactive fallout across a continent. Never mind places which are actually upstream of somebody else. The East Coast of the US would be perfect, except for the fact that there's a huge number of people living there. Likewise, China would have a similar issue as most of their major cities or on their eastern coast as well.
That's the way it works. We could've had proper single payer universal healthcare coverage, but we're paying for two pointless wars instead. We could have proper banking reform, but probably won't since ZOMG teh Soshulists. And we can't have this because a large part of American stubbornly refuses that corporatists don't care about their interests. Even though the ones that are hurt the worse by this are the same rural voters that refuse to recognize what their politicians are doing to the country.
That's the thing, in general religion isn't supposed to be in scientific papers really at all. Or any commentary that's not relevant to the study. Likewise people in civil society don't talk about religion at work because it causes problems. When you put those two things together, of course scientists aren't going to be talking a lot about that in the field. It's a cultural norm in most parts of the developed world not to talk about those things at work.
Now, if you're a scientist that's looking for funding to try and demonstrate something religious in nature, you're probably going to have trouble getting funding. But that's hardly discrimination unless you can put a really good explanation as to the what, why and how of your study.
It's not a silly argument at all. It's the difference between delusion and a sunny disposition. Choosing to believe what a religion says even when there's clear incontrovertible evidence to the contrary is more or less mental illness, not a legitimate religious belief. One can legitimately claim that there's a god for the simple reason that we can't prove that there isn't to any reasonable certainty.
It's that viewpoint which tends to cause scientists to clam up about religion rather than necessarily any reason to hide it. I went to a very liberal school and a significant number of my professors were practicing Catholics. Perhaps it's a biased sample, but I can't imagine them saying they were at such a liberal institution if they were feeling it would damage their careers.
It's a problem of implementation. Few sites disclose that they're wanting to do it, and I had no idea until I installed noscript and started to have to enable a huge number of sites to view what should be relatively simple ones. On top of which each one can have vulnerabilities. I'm not suggesting that you were wrong, there are definite reasons why centralization is asking for trouble. But by the same token, I don't think the companies engaging in that process are as transparent, honest and responsible about it as they need to be.
Because he's using in non-literally. The CDNs don't provide a service to the people that have to put up with them in most cases. It personally pisses me off to have to loosen up so thoroughly on noscript for a website to be even able to figure out if I want to see the content. Worse is that few sites if any actually disclose what sites they allow to connect in that fashion meaning that you don't necessarily know whether a particular site is meant to be loading content. It's just an easy way of them losing your information then not being responsible for the consequences.
That's incredibly inaccurate. So how about one that's about cars. Say you have your choice of two cars. One is reliable works well in the snow but costs 30k. Now say that the other one is somewhat unreliable and dubious in the snow, but it costs only 20k. The implication you're making is that you would ignore the lesser quality and save the money. The problem though is that you're giving something up in order to get the cheaper price and if you're in an area that has a lot of snow, the cheaper car could very easily cost you 10k on missed work alone.
Outsourced labor is much the same way. Nobody is as productive as American workers are, the only country that comes close to us is Norway and they've got a small enough population that we're not in any trouble from them. Chinese and Indian labor looks a lot worse when you factor in the externalities like pissing off your customers with poor support, heavy metal laden goods and flat out shoddy quality. Sure there are exceptions, but you have to pay more for them which largely defeats the purpose of going off shore.
Off screen is a bad idea. My Nexus One can change orientation based upon it's physical orientation, there isn't really anywhere on the device where you could put it where it would be both out of the way and off screen. And I don't like the idea of them limiting the directions in which I can turn it because then I have to use the hand to control it that they tell me to or face the problems above.
Yes, the people that built a mouse with only one button are surely the people that you want designing everything else. They've gotten better, but let's be honest about something, most of their ideas were stolen from elsewhere. The iPod interface with the buttons excepted, was a complete rip off of what Creative had already been shipping. The iPhone is great, as long as you don't need buttons and don't want to do something that Apple doesn't like. It's easy to put together reliable and efficient products if you prevent the user from doing things that are hard to design for.
Apple's interest is to make the hugest profit possible. And that's definitely not something that's ever been helped by competition. Competition is what helps people on the demand side of the equation, not the supply.
I don't know about you, but I expect the police to provide security, as well as the military and intelligence agencies. They don't provide complete security, but they do go quite a ways. Computer security is like that. On top of that comes personal and community responsibility.
Umm, this isn't a particularly new license. It's basically the BSD license plus a license for the patents. The patent license is free so long as none of the bits of the format infringe upon somebody else's patent. It's about as simple a license as you can expect, and definitely as simple as you can get while providing patents.
Yes, iIt basically means that you're free to use the patent as long as some other party doesn't have a claim to a patent required to make use of it. The GPL does not allow you to put requirements on a third party that isn't a party to the license. As such, I highly doubt that it doesn't comply with the GPLv3 in that respect. It is irrevocable from Google's perspective, they can't revoke it unless somebody else first finds that the code violates their patent.
The format itself isn't the issue that can be fully documented without the source. However the implementation is what's important. Well that and the patent. Both of which are being provided.
Isn't it a Tad ironic that a non-science which engages in that sort of confirmation bias "research" is responsible for an article telling us why people do that?
OTOH science isn't perfect due to the lack of granularity in studies not everything can be accounted for and as such it isn't always the best answer. The gambler's fallacy springs to my mind. Or really the unfounded assumption that factors outside the game have negligible impact and each possibility is equally likely. Neither of which are ever justified outside of theoretical scenarios.
Because you can't copyright gameplay. You could theoretically patent it, but trademarks don't apply to that either. And given that the app doesn't use the word "Tetris" anywhere in it one can only assume that the trolls at The Tetris Company, LLC are confusing the terms. Not that they've even tried to get it patented as those would already be expired in pretty much any jurisdiction by now.
At least in the US you're allowed to use the trademark in referring to the original item. So regardless of what Apple might like you can use iPod, iPad, iMac all you like as long as you refer to their product. Likewise in this case regardless of what this outfit might think saying that something is a clone of the classic game Tetris is completely legal. It's not within the domain of trademark law to prevent that. At least not in the US.
But that's trademarks, not copyright, how they think that they can use the DMCA to enforce that is beyond me. The DMCA only applies to the copyright not trademark.
This isn't really a walled garden, had Google not taken it down and it gone to court then they could've been liable for infringement themselves. The DMCA safe harbor provision is frequently abused in this manner. It doesn't matter whether or not Google approves apps before they go in, by hosting the content they would otherwise be liable for possible infringement.
Sigh, I'm not sure where that rumor got started. They don't claim to be untouchable otherwise why would they be advertising an insurance policy included with service? They pay the first I think it's 2 million of fraudulent activities if they're unable to get it fixed so that you aren't charged for them. I doubt very much that they'd include that if they were really untouchable. Not saying that I trust them or use them, but we should at least be telling the truth about it.
Why it is that we allow them to think that they own that information is beyond me. The information belongs to the person to which it applies. I should have complete control over how it's used and who gets to see it. There certainly shouldn't be anybody looking at it without my requesting a product or service which requires a credit check. But I'm sure the ZOMG corporations being held accountable people will tell me that it's completely my fault if they lose my personal information like TD Ameritrade did. Because obviously I should've known that they'd buy out my brokerage firm and fail to properly secure my contact information.
I'm not surprised they'd be doing this with malaria drugs given who they're targeting with them they're not particularly profitable. I wouldn't be surprised if they try this with antibiotics next. Neither set of drugs are particularly profitable and are done mainly as a community service.
You've more or less hit on it. MS has to find new markets in order to grow any larger, they've got something like 90% of the desktop OS market. Even if they were to grow and fill out more or less all of that, you're still talking about probably an 8 or 9% increase. The cost of doing that would almost certainly outweigh any actual revenue growth. Things like Zune, Bing and XBox are ways in which they're trying to grow into new markets. But at heart MS has always been a software company.
Whereas Apple has pretty much always been a hardware company that sells software on the side. These days there's an awful lot of hardware left to invent and sell, hence why Apple is growing. But it's hardly a matter of them beating MS in any meaningful way. Apple still hasn't made much in the way of inroads into MS' domain of office and OS. And it could be a long time if they ever manage it.