In a system like ours, each branch of government has a specific role to play. The legislature crafts and passes laws. The judiciary determines whether the laws are valid. And the executive branch takes actions prescribed by the laws.
But only the executive branch has the power to actually do anything about the laws. It is almost a travesty how much power this puts into one single branch of government. Where we expect checks and balances, there is only unbalance in favor of the executive branch.
FTFA: The city will continue using the internet as part of background checks to judge the character of applicants, and although the city will stop asking for passwords Kukulski says the passwords already given by previous applicants will remain the confidential property of the city.
It doesn't matter if searching online is legal or not. In fact, it may be illegal to consider anonymous online sources as actionable information. As long as the executive branch says it is going to do something, there are no laws that can truly restrict it.
According to Air Force officials, the previous story was incorrect and the GPS are working properly. The person responsible for the false story has been apprehended and will face a military tribunal. These are not the droids you are looking for.
Programmers are a dime a dozen. That ain't nothing but ten-cent coding.
Designers, though, are the core of any game. They are the ones who shape and craft the game, much like I.M. Pei designs masterful works of architecture. The programmers are just the construction workers who make the design a reality. Both are skilled and necessary, but construction workers without an architect aren't going to build anything of great value.
That's why Lua is such a great teaching language, and why I think this book does really well. The focus is on the design of the games first and foremost. What are the gamer's needs? What are the goals and subgoals for each level? That's the most important thing. And Lua is a great language to help bring those designs into reality.
Yes, coding is necessary, and this book has plenty of code. But if you are serious about creating a game, it's the design that matters, the implementation can be farmed off to any body shop.
It's true that some carriers may offer advanced bearer services, and that some phones may have features that work better or only on certain networks. If the carriers want to argue that angle, they may get some traction on this innovation claim.
I can see it going something like this: 1) We want to offer subscribers advanced bearer services 2) This is a chicken/egg problem - we can't offer it unless UE manufacturers build it, and vice versa 3) The only way to break through this is to work together to deploy these phones/services simultaneously 4) Since we are sharing development costs, we want to guarantee to recoup those costs 5) The way to recoup costs is to have exclusivity agreements
This isn't a bad argument, except that it shows just how deep in bed UE manus are with the carriers. Subsidized development, subsidized phones, exclusivity agreements. If you look at it, the whole thing is a huge oligopoly designed to keep little guys out of the market.
On a technical level American carriers care only that the phones pass GCF. If they want to bring innovation into this, they are going to have to argue that somehow the business model itself is innovative, but I don't think that is what they are saying.
What is important in exclusivity is that users don't have a choice of carriers if they want to buy a specific phone. If you want the iPhone, you're stuck with AT&T, for example. But that doesn't bring any innovation to the phones themselves.
Unlocking the phones isn't any better, though, technologically speaking. With a choice of carriers, you end up with a lot of choice, but the phones on the market are still the same old dreck. The reason for this is because the innovation must happen at the phone maker level. To support this, operating system vendors need to also be innovative. And to make sure that innovative operating systems can run, advanced chips are necessary.
But none of that involves the carriers. Carriers are merely the pipes: A necessary component, but a wholly replaceable part. From a technical innovation standpoint, these guys are the road system. Cars are what we consider innovative, roads are only considered when they suck. And frankly, American cellular carriers suck.
In this day and age of feel-good, everyone's a winner anti-competitiveness, it should be no surprise that someone would come along and claim that giving up is the same as winning.
I'd be interested to hear your views on filesharing and copyrights.
If you think that using a person's picture without consent or knowledge is fine, I'd be willing to bet you think that violating copyright is also fine, since, as you say, no harm is done.
In Transformers 2, we are faced with the possible annihilation of the human race at the hands of the Decepticons. The scary thing is that these robot/aliens take on forms that make them blend in with our everyday environment. We don't see the threat because the threat is masquerading as part of our normal world.
Are you sure? Because science is done by a handful of "qualified" people working in ivory towers. A cathedral staffed with priests, if you will.
Open Source, though, is more like a bazaar. Wild and eclectic, the bazaar atmosphere takes the best and worst of everything, stirs it together, and produces some of the finest things found anywhere. Everyone has a say and anyone can set up shop.
I'm no millionaire, but I'd say that Open Source is much more like a bazaar than a cathedral.
His sister and mother both committed suicide by hanging 5 years ago. He may have had a genetic propensity towards suicide.
Culturally, Indians have a very heavy emphasis on honor and responsibility. The failure of the software is only the outermost layer of true damage. Each of those compromised VMs is a failure to satisfy a customer at best, and a grave violation of the trust between vendor and customer.
When it comes to suicide, why hanging? It seems like a really hard way to go. Maybe the person wants to suffer to pay back his debts before death.
I don't believe Ballmer has the ballmers to move the whole company out of the U.S., much less trade his life in the Emerald City for the Emerald Isle.
But I do believe he has a point about seeking out the lowest cost of business, and if it comes down to it, I wouldn't be surprised to see Microsoft move all accounts receivabo to a tax haven and just keep cost centers in the U.S.
Take a look at what they've already done. They have already set up development centers in low labor cost countries like India and China. Moving more of those jobs out of the U.S. would just be a natural progression in the quest for lower costs. The worst part of this is that as time goes by the developers in those up and coming countries are getting just as good as their American counterparts. At some point we're looking at a hiring crisis here in America.
We're facing a 16 year educational depression as the currently undereducated kids gets graduates and makes way for a new generation educated satisfactorily. Naturally, this begs the question, but I think Obama is the guy to make the right changes to the DOE.
Can we all just get along and say Java has its place: not at the flight controller level, but somewhere between flight controller and web app and stop the "my language is flat out better than yours"?
Clearly you have missed the point of posting on Slashdot.
This was actually discussed a couple days ago here on/.
The topic was slightly different, but the parallels exist. Essentially, any difficult concept must be broken down into simpler but less accurate statements in order for the general public to digest them. So when a scientist sees a rise in atmospheric methane levels and has traced the rise to melting methane ice due to increased global temperatures, he needs to 1) explain it simply so that the layman can understand and 2) explain the consequences of the information.
So for any concept which you are hearing, it must be understood that a much more complex and nuanced explanation exists but you aren't getting it.
Take that into the public sphere. It is impossible to debate an issue on its merits, because the time necessary would be prohibitive. So we resort to simplifications and "dogma" to explain the difficult ideas expressed.
The problem is that the lay public is dumb and thinks that what they are hearing is God's Truth. The result is the ever spreading brutishness and lack of subtlety that we see in today's American culture.
Slashdot Mirror
In a system like ours, each branch of government has a specific role to play. The legislature crafts and passes laws. The judiciary determines whether the laws are valid. And the executive branch takes actions prescribed by the laws.
But only the executive branch has the power to actually do anything about the laws. It is almost a travesty how much power this puts into one single branch of government. Where we expect checks and balances, there is only unbalance in favor of the executive branch.
FTFA:
The city will continue using the internet as part of background checks to judge the character of applicants, and although the city will stop asking for passwords Kukulski says the passwords already given by previous applicants will remain the confidential property of the city.
It doesn't matter if searching online is legal or not. In fact, it may be illegal to consider anonymous online sources as actionable information. As long as the executive branch says it is going to do something, there are no laws that can truly restrict it.
Sony execs aren't dumb. They aren't going to announce price cuts until they happen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_effect
This is exactly the reason why campaign contributions and contributors should be made public.
Two things about crowdsourcing:
1) It is terribly efficient.
2) It solicits input from the public.
Interestingly enough, neither of those are directly related to truth.
As long as DNS works fine, and I can access all my favorite porn sites, I don't care what is going on under the covers.
For all I know, it could be hamsters squeaking in HyperCard. As a user, it really doesn't matter.
According to Air Force officials, the previous story was incorrect and the GPS are working properly. The person responsible for the false story has been apprehended and will face a military tribunal. These are not the droids you are looking for.
Move along.
Programmers are a dime a dozen. That ain't nothing but ten-cent coding.
Designers, though, are the core of any game. They are the ones who shape and craft the game, much like I.M. Pei designs masterful works of architecture. The programmers are just the construction workers who make the design a reality. Both are skilled and necessary, but construction workers without an architect aren't going to build anything of great value.
That's why Lua is such a great teaching language, and why I think this book does really well. The focus is on the design of the games first and foremost. What are the gamer's needs? What are the goals and subgoals for each level? That's the most important thing. And Lua is a great language to help bring those designs into reality.
Yes, coding is necessary, and this book has plenty of code. But if you are serious about creating a game, it's the design that matters, the implementation can be farmed off to any body shop.
If phenotype is not determined by genotype, then why would you put yourself at risk of higher health insurance premiums?
It's true that some carriers may offer advanced bearer services, and that some phones may have features that work better or only on certain networks. If the carriers want to argue that angle, they may get some traction on this innovation claim.
I can see it going something like this:
1) We want to offer subscribers advanced bearer services
2) This is a chicken/egg problem - we can't offer it unless UE manufacturers build it, and vice versa
3) The only way to break through this is to work together to deploy these phones/services simultaneously
4) Since we are sharing development costs, we want to guarantee to recoup those costs
5) The way to recoup costs is to have exclusivity agreements
This isn't a bad argument, except that it shows just how deep in bed UE manus are with the carriers. Subsidized development, subsidized phones, exclusivity agreements. If you look at it, the whole thing is a huge oligopoly designed to keep little guys out of the market.
On a technical level American carriers care only that the phones pass GCF. If they want to bring innovation into this, they are going to have to argue that somehow the business model itself is innovative, but I don't think that is what they are saying.
What is important in exclusivity is that users don't have a choice of carriers if they want to buy a specific phone. If you want the iPhone, you're stuck with AT&T, for example. But that doesn't bring any innovation to the phones themselves.
Unlocking the phones isn't any better, though, technologically speaking. With a choice of carriers, you end up with a lot of choice, but the phones on the market are still the same old dreck. The reason for this is because the innovation must happen at the phone maker level. To support this, operating system vendors need to also be innovative. And to make sure that innovative operating systems can run, advanced chips are necessary.
But none of that involves the carriers. Carriers are merely the pipes: A necessary component, but a wholly replaceable part. From a technical innovation standpoint, these guys are the road system. Cars are what we consider innovative, roads are only considered when they suck. And frankly, American cellular carriers suck.
If you've got a browser, this one's for you.
Everyone wins.
In this day and age of feel-good, everyone's a winner anti-competitiveness, it should be no surprise that someone would come along and claim that giving up is the same as winning.
I'd be interested to hear your views on filesharing and copyrights.
If you think that using a person's picture without consent or knowledge is fine, I'd be willing to bet you think that violating copyright is also fine, since, as you say, no harm is done.
Do it right.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002168937_coffeemug03.html
Sue them.
FYI
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4213214.stm
In Transformers 2, we are faced with the possible annihilation of the human race at the hands of the Decepticons. The scary thing is that these robot/aliens take on forms that make them blend in with our everyday environment. We don't see the threat because the threat is masquerading as part of our normal world.
Are you sure? Because science is done by a handful of "qualified" people working in ivory towers. A cathedral staffed with priests, if you will.
Open Source, though, is more like a bazaar. Wild and eclectic, the bazaar atmosphere takes the best and worst of everything, stirs it together, and produces some of the finest things found anywhere. Everyone has a say and anyone can set up shop.
I'm no millionaire, but I'd say that Open Source is much more like a bazaar than a cathedral.
Potatoes come in many different shapes.
Wave is a total ripoff of Sharepoint, which is a ripoff of Notes and other collaboration software.
If Ozzie really wanted to criticize Google, he should have gone after their unoriginality. Then again, such a criticism may bite him back.
What do you attach the noose to that can support 150+ pounds?
Are you saying this guy is despicable?
His sister and mother both committed suicide by hanging 5 years ago. He may have had a genetic propensity towards suicide.
Culturally, Indians have a very heavy emphasis on honor and responsibility. The failure of the software is only the outermost layer of true damage. Each of those compromised VMs is a failure to satisfy a customer at best, and a grave violation of the trust between vendor and customer.
When it comes to suicide, why hanging? It seems like a really hard way to go. Maybe the person wants to suffer to pay back his debts before death.
In Britain, they use "pounds" as a measure of money. That's why "X pounds of material" makes sense in this case.
They aren't talking about the weight of the material, they are talking about its price.
I don't believe Ballmer has the ballmers to move the whole company out of the U.S., much less trade his life in the Emerald City for the Emerald Isle.
But I do believe he has a point about seeking out the lowest cost of business, and if it comes down to it, I wouldn't be surprised to see Microsoft move all accounts receivabo to a tax haven and just keep cost centers in the U.S.
Take a look at what they've already done. They have already set up development centers in low labor cost countries like India and China. Moving more of those jobs out of the U.S. would just be a natural progression in the quest for lower costs. The worst part of this is that as time goes by the developers in those up and coming countries are getting just as good as their American counterparts. At some point we're looking at a hiring crisis here in America.
We're facing a 16 year educational depression as the currently undereducated kids gets graduates and makes way for a new generation educated satisfactorily. Naturally, this begs the question, but I think Obama is the guy to make the right changes to the DOE.
Can we all just get along and say Java has its place: not at the flight controller level, but somewhere between flight controller and web app and stop the "my language is flat out better than yours"?
Clearly you have missed the point of posting on Slashdot.
This was actually discussed a couple days ago here on /.
The topic was slightly different, but the parallels exist. Essentially, any difficult concept must be broken down into simpler but less accurate statements in order for the general public to digest them. So when a scientist sees a rise in atmospheric methane levels and has traced the rise to melting methane ice due to increased global temperatures, he needs to 1) explain it simply so that the layman can understand and 2) explain the consequences of the information.
So for any concept which you are hearing, it must be understood that a much more complex and nuanced explanation exists but you aren't getting it.
Take that into the public sphere. It is impossible to debate an issue on its merits, because the time necessary would be prohibitive. So we resort to simplifications and "dogma" to explain the difficult ideas expressed.
The problem is that the lay public is dumb and thinks that what they are hearing is God's Truth. The result is the ever spreading brutishness and lack of subtlety that we see in today's American culture.