I agree. It would be nice if people could ignore the provocation. They can on an individual level, but once you scale it up to groups, something happens.
Why do you assume the responses are emotional? Why do you think I haven't thought it through? Because if I had, I'd see it your way?
What nerve has OWS hit? Let's say I AM part of the 99% and still disagree with them. What does that say? For those that got a CS degree, are in debt, aren't living the american dream, and still don't see OWS's point of view, you explain it by them being emotional. But it could be that OWS doesn't represent the people on this site.
It's possible that many of the people went to cheaper schools. They might not have the debt. They might have lived at home for a number of years after graduating college to establish a nest egg, maybe to buy a house.
To get personal, I work hard, I get a decent salary, decent healthcare, I manage my budget, and I live a decent life. I don't need a fancy and expensive products, a big house, etc. I don't expect to live the american dream working eight hours a day. But I do expect someone working 10 to 12 hours a day to live a decent life, even if they don't own a house. I expect universal health care. But I don't expect smokers' to be covered by that.
I don't know what the stats for slashdot are. But judging by the results, I'd guess that most are living decently. I wouldn't think that they just didn't think it through.
It is peaceable assembly for the most part. But there are still limits on rights like that (eg, can't cry "fire" in a crowded theater). The right to assemble doesn't mean the right to camp out on private land over night. You can't impinge on other people's rights.
Would you agree that IF the reports of sexual abuse, etc, are true, then the city was right to shut them down?
OK, fine. Take pharma as the example. So you agree: patents are needed in some situations.
As for space flight, I'm not saying it's easy, but it's easier to answer a question once you've seen the answer. Either way, considering how you feel about pharma patents, wouldn't you agree that if a space company developed a new fuel or insulating material, then they should be able to have some sort of patent on it?
But then what incentive is there for a company to get into the business in the first place? I'm thinking of private space flights. That kind of research takes an enormous amount of money and risk to life. I don't think it's fair to say that another company can just come in and duplicate the mechanism afterward.
Of course, if there are no patents, then other people wouldn't know the details of how you did what you did. We are way past the age of simple machines, where you could take apart a typewriter and duplicate it. So if there are no patents and the innovator doesn't have to share details, then sure, first mover advantage should be OK. In this case, no one else would have known why Google's energy bills were so much lower.
But then you are limiting the amount of money that anyone could potentially make; it's limited to the amount of grant money available. And you are also restricting the ideas that get developed to the ones that the person holding the purse strings thinks are worthy.
There's no reason both models can't co-exist, but neither is a replacement for the other
no, i'm not saying we have to do this. i'm saying it might be worth it for the community at large. i'm saying a dollar a month shouldn't be the reason we abandon newspapers.
the reason im saying im not willing to give up newspapers is to say that newspapers provide a service that hasnt been replaced by bloggers or anyone else.
dude, relax, it's a dollar. do u rail against all the bullshit charges from the telcos and cable companies? i (and many others im sure) have pissed away alot more for a lot less. not all journalists and newspapers suck, and tho there are some good bloggers out there, im not willing to give up my newspaper just yet. and if we need regulation to keep them alive, then that might be worth it. u cant always "depend on the people" because sometimes u end up with a tragedy of the commons type situation
Do you have a reason for saying it's bunk? This is not my field so maybe you're right, but nothing sticks out from the articles.
And by "bunk", you mean that these fossils are NOT dwarfed humans, right? Because the other alternative that is being floated is that it's a distinct species.
Neither article describes how to stop the autorun.inf file from being processed on all removable media
So, IS there a way to stop the autorun.inf file from being processed on all removable media?
And I think that is the main point made by the article - yeah, sure, with a bit of spin too. With all the qualifications you have on your statements, you are technically correct. However, if there are no clear instructions on how to stop the autorun.inf file from being processed on ALL media, removable or otherwise, Microsoft should provide them or explicitly say that it isn't possible. And the researchers could probably approach Microsoft in a less accusatory manner. People just want to keep their systems safe.
Actually, the GP brings up a good point. It should really be one hand emulating 2, to use your analogy. I'm not sure your analogy captures that. Maybe if she switched off fast enough?
trust me, his mom would be down for that. in fact, she handles multiple requests simultaneously. in the true multiple cores way, not the hyperthreading way
No, I'm using Hans Blix as a basis for saying that Saddam didn't have WMDs.
Why so keen to get rid of the inspectors? Well, Iraq is a sovereign nation. Why WOULD they want other people in their business?
Slashdot Mirror
Correlation is not causation!
I agree. It would be nice if people could ignore the provocation. They can on an individual level, but once you scale it up to groups, something happens.
The US aid is pretty much bribery. You are already paying them to act a certain way.
Why do you assume the responses are emotional? Why do you think I haven't thought it through? Because if I had, I'd see it your way? What nerve has OWS hit? Let's say I AM part of the 99% and still disagree with them. What does that say? For those that got a CS degree, are in debt, aren't living the american dream, and still don't see OWS's point of view, you explain it by them being emotional. But it could be that OWS doesn't represent the people on this site. It's possible that many of the people went to cheaper schools. They might not have the debt. They might have lived at home for a number of years after graduating college to establish a nest egg, maybe to buy a house. To get personal, I work hard, I get a decent salary, decent healthcare, I manage my budget, and I live a decent life. I don't need a fancy and expensive products, a big house, etc. I don't expect to live the american dream working eight hours a day. But I do expect someone working 10 to 12 hours a day to live a decent life, even if they don't own a house. I expect universal health care. But I don't expect smokers' to be covered by that. I don't know what the stats for slashdot are. But judging by the results, I'd guess that most are living decently. I wouldn't think that they just didn't think it through.
It is peaceable assembly for the most part. But there are still limits on rights like that (eg, can't cry "fire" in a crowded theater). The right to assemble doesn't mean the right to camp out on private land over night. You can't impinge on other people's rights. Would you agree that IF the reports of sexual abuse, etc, are true, then the city was right to shut them down?
I don't get it. What's wrong with the original quote? What's the grammatical error?
OK, fine. Take pharma as the example. So you agree: patents are needed in some situations.
As for space flight, I'm not saying it's easy, but it's easier to answer a question once you've seen the answer. Either way, considering how you feel about pharma patents, wouldn't you agree that if a space company developed a new fuel or insulating material, then they should be able to have some sort of patent on it?
But then what incentive is there for a company to get into the business in the first place? I'm thinking of private space flights. That kind of research takes an enormous amount of money and risk to life. I don't think it's fair to say that another company can just come in and duplicate the mechanism afterward.
Of course, if there are no patents, then other people wouldn't know the details of how you did what you did. We are way past the age of simple machines, where you could take apart a typewriter and duplicate it. So if there are no patents and the innovator doesn't have to share details, then sure, first mover advantage should be OK. In this case, no one else would have known why Google's energy bills were so much lower.
But then you are limiting the amount of money that anyone could potentially make; it's limited to the amount of grant money available. And you are also restricting the ideas that get developed to the ones that the person holding the purse strings thinks are worthy.
There's no reason both models can't co-exist, but neither is a replacement for the other
i disagree. it's never too soon. at least this comment wasn't intended to offend.
no, i'm not saying we have to do this. i'm saying it might be worth it for the community at large. i'm saying a dollar a month shouldn't be the reason we abandon newspapers.
the reason im saying im not willing to give up newspapers is to say that newspapers provide a service that hasnt been replaced by bloggers or anyone else.
dude, relax, it's a dollar. do u rail against all the bullshit charges from the telcos and cable companies? i (and many others im sure) have pissed away alot more for a lot less.
not all journalists and newspapers suck, and tho there are some good bloggers out there, im not willing to give up my newspaper just yet. and if we need regulation to keep them alive, then that might be worth it. u cant always "depend on the people" because sometimes u end up with a tragedy of the commons type situation
Do you have a reason for saying it's bunk? This is not my field so maybe you're right, but nothing sticks out from the articles.
And by "bunk", you mean that these fossils are NOT dwarfed humans, right? Because the other alternative that is being floated is that it's a distinct species.
i dunno... how much are bullets these day?
;-)
ha, ha, just a joke, folks!
on the other hand, if you thought the sims 2 remove blur hack was awesome, wait till you see what's available outside!
But. And it is a big but.
I like big buts and i cannot lie
Neither article describes how to stop the autorun.inf file from being processed on all removable media
So, IS there a way to stop the autorun.inf file from being processed on all removable media?
And I think that is the main point made by the article - yeah, sure, with a bit of spin too. With all the qualifications you have on your statements, you are technically correct. However, if there are no clear instructions on how to stop the autorun.inf file from being processed on ALL media, removable or otherwise, Microsoft should provide them or explicitly say that it isn't possible. And the researchers could probably approach Microsoft in a less accusatory manner. People just want to keep their systems safe.
actually, i wanted to show meatswing to someone and couldnt find it. link please?
and that adult bath toy the battery powered vibrator.
Oh, pure genius! I never even *considered* taking adult toys into the bath! Sign me up for your newsletter!
Actually, the GP brings up a good point. It should really be one hand emulating 2, to use your analogy. I'm not sure your analogy captures that. Maybe if she switched off fast enough?
trust me, his mom would be down for that. in fact, she handles multiple requests simultaneously. in the true multiple cores way, not the hyperthreading way
hmmm... you sound like you might be a TERRORIST!
No, I'm using Hans Blix as a basis for saying that Saddam didn't have WMDs.
Why so keen to get rid of the inspectors? Well, Iraq is a sovereign nation. Why WOULD they want other people in their business?
Do you remember Hans Blix?
Check out slide 6. Let me tell you, I'm excited.