Now what if you plugged in the new tuner to the old connections, and suddenly its display read: "Sure, I have a two-plug RCA input, but it's not actually connected to anything, so you can plug in an RCA jack but no sound will come out". That's what having a method that throws MethodNotSupport is like: the jack -- or member function name -- is there, but the implementation is not.
Hi, I'm from the RIAA. We're fascinated by your proposal and we'd like your help in implementing this new functionality-crippling techno...oh, were you just speaking hypothetically?
Put a tethered lamb in front of a cave with fresh running water and see if the human would rather die than kill and eat the lamb. If you kill the lamb, if you'd rather die, then well and good - I respect your principles whilst simultaneously denouncing you as a fool. If you kill and eat the lamb, everything comes down to a matter of degree - when is it acceptable to eat meat and when is it not? That's an arbitrary decision made by an individual based on his/her preconceptions. No one decision is any more "right" than any other since the decision is a personal one.
While I eat meat myself, I'm not sure I buy your moral logic. If I were starving, I would be willing to steal food. Theft is still wrong. But stealing food is better than starving to death.
If we're forced into it, sometimes we have to choose the lesser of two evils. But we shouldn't let that choice establish a precedent. We shouldn't say "If it's okay to kill in self defence, then you can kill anyone any time you want as well."
To a person who believed that an animal has rights, the decision to eat meat would not be a personal one since it would involve another being. The decision to eat meat is only 'personal' if you don't consider the creature being eaten to have rights in the situation.
The law, of course, recognizes the decision as personal since it only recognizes people as subjects and animals are mostly considered property which is used as people see fit - though there are some animal cruelty laws.
I have nothing against eating animals either, but 'survival of the fittest' is not a moral philisophy in any sense of the word. It is pure power relations, i.e. "you can kill someone if it helps you and they can't punish you for doing it."
Quite a few homeopathic medicines have been proven to be helpful based on lab studies.
Check out tumeric (or it's derivative coumarin) on pubmed. Quercetin (found in apples and garlic). Garlic itself, for that matter. And a host of other organic compounds. These ingredients are active and helpful, though not often as powerful as the stuff you get behind the counter.
>>Hasn't this tech been show to be damaging to Ham radios? Something that is usually very helpful in times of emergency, when phones and sometimes power is even out?
Well, if you're only keeping your HAM for emergencies, then I have your perfect solution. If there's an emergency which knocks out the power, THEN you can use your HAM radio.
The IP laws that you referenced weren't worth the paper that they were written on when I went to China. Rule of law in China is secondary to the power of your family.
Online gaming in China, or at least Jiangsu - seemed much like in the US - Warcract, counterstrike, playstation, etc.
Seriously, have you been to the country? Do you have friends there? If so, I welcome your opinion. If not, I think you're relying far far far too much on published news sources, which are not a reliable way to get to know the country. Laws, govt. statistics from China and news releases are just so much PR, one of China's many exports. There is a far wider gap between what people do and what the govt. wants in China than even in the US.
When I was there, there was a van with the words "Intellectual Property Enforcement" driving around one time, or somthing to that effect. Written in English. Who could read it? Only foreigners. That kind of thing speaks volumes about the Chinese mentality.
There was an IP case around 2004 - I can't remember its contents - where China filed an international suit and won. It was a face saving way of signaling that they may recognize international copyrights. However as of 2003-2004 the government was not making any serious effort to enforce IP law. An arrest or two every few months, and everyone else can do as they please in broad daylight.
China will only be motivated to enforce IP laws when it starts to have more IP to enforce. It was the same when the US was starting out.
Okay, I've spent too much time arguing on Yahoo boards and have become rather imprecise. Yes, the US is a democratic republic. I've just gotten used to people saying "we're free and they aren't" etc. to justify their own supposed superiority. Knee jerk reaction. Sorry.
Personally, I think it's China who is taking the 'long view,' somthing that the Chinese are known for. They entice companies with short term profits, but the end result is that the Chinese will have their industrial technology. These companies going to China are either selling themselves out or investing in their competition. Once these companies are knee deep in Chinese territory, China has an established history of selling them short.
In the Chinese view, this is the time when "sheep eat people." Just as various attempts to starve the southern states to feed the industrial north led to the American civil war, China is working to exploit their agricultural base in order to get cheap currency to buy foreign goods. In short, they're doing whatever they can to get industrial technology and the foreign currency that they need to buy advanced weapons.
Add to this the fact that China is massively corrupt, and it becomes clear why this huge influx of money isn't creating the basis for democracy. Government (at the risk of sounding stuffy here) is pretty much a formalization of existing power relations. And China hasn't created a broad middle class. They're where we were at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution with Robber Barons, cheap labor, etc.
Also, I think some of this "globalization" trend is an effort by Western companies to counteract the power of unions and drive wages down. With industries in several labor pools, each working below capacity, any labor shortage in one pool can be made up for by switching to another.
Having been to China, I can say that there is certainly a market for high tech gadgets in the cities. The purchase of cars has soared. The roads can't take it. Internet bars are everywhere. There are more cell phones there than in the US. High tech stores run a brisk business. But you can't make software since there are no patents and so much readily available pirated software.
Don't believe any of this stuff about the Chinese switching to Linux. In sensitive govt. operations, maybe. But everywhere I went they were running pirated copies of windows.
Of course, I taught in Nanjing, which is in Jiangsu ( the wealthiest province in China) and the other provices are much different. Heck, even the rural areas of Nanjing are different. I guess what I'm trying to say is that 3rd world countries aren't typified by poverty as much as extreme disparity of wealth. There is a market for high end goods.
The Chinese 'Communist' party is closer to 'fascist' now. Chinese are going over Mao's little red book for business tips.
What China is proving today is that free market capitalism doesn't inherently lead toward freedom.
While I'd agree with that, China is still a third world country outside of a few major cities.
Of course, China is democratic at the local level. And America is only so democratic at the national level - we're effectivly dominated by the two major parties, and have proven ourselves unable to elect anyone except the people they put forward.
I guess it's all in how you define freedom. While China still ain't that great a place to live, they do have more freedoms now that 10 years ago. For example, China recently lifted the restriction saying you couldn't sleep with someone unless you were married to them. 15 years ago or so, this law was heavily enforced.
As much as we're indoctrinated to believe it, "freedom" and "democracy" are not absolutes. China has some democracy... but not enough. Their freedom has definitely been increasing as well.
In terms of freedom, China has some freedoms that the US doesn't have - freedom from patents. Freedom from required proscriptions. Freedom from consumer protections. Freedom to buy fireworks and use them outside of major cities. Freedom to buy alcohol and cigarettes without a license or age requirement. For whatever those things are worth... Though I'm not attempting to argue that they're "freer" than the US is. They still have a lot of regulations they have to follow.
Organization + gathering helps the more powerful adversary.
But when you're a weak enemy fighting a strong enemy, hierarchical organization means that your leaders get targeted and killed. The key is to coordinate movements without becoming too organized.
In these kinds of wars, most people are often innocent civilians. The weaker enemy can sometimes gain an advantage by coaxing the stronger enemy to attack blindly. The effect is to radicalize the otherwise innocent and apathetic population when bystandars are killed. This is what Sinn Fein did, for instance, in Ireland.
While I agree with you, I think the spirit of your reply is different from the GP.
3.1.1 Adding guns. Everyone should be allowed a gun. It makes perfect sense in this day and age. If times change, people in the future will totally have the sense to understand this was an ammendment, relevent to the time, and so can completely be ammended back out, right?
He seems to be saying that times changed, not that guns changed. I have no problem with limiting "The Right to Bear Arms" to any weapon roughly as powerful as what was available in 1776 (though safer to use.) But there are some people who want to go further than that, and try to argue that the amendment is 'anitquated.'
Thanks for the info. The
blackbird was stealth too, though. But the Nighthawk was the first, you're right, so it's the one which is usually called "stealth".
*gingerly hands you your nit back*
Mr. Stoller's and opposers' litigation strategy of delay, harassment and even falsifying documents in other cases is well documented. Leo Stoller, has also been sanctioned, individually, for making material misrepresentations to the Board regarding an applicant's alleged consent to extensions of time.
1.5: Hmm. How did we miss rape? Technically you're not stealing anything physical. If she's unmarried, you're not coveting anything. OK, we'll add rape.
In biblical times, the girl would belong to her father or her husband.
So we decided to release 2.0: The Magna Carter.
A cross between Jimmy Carter and the Magna Carta? The king can't stop you from growing peanuts?
Everyone should be allowed a gun. It makes perfect sense in this day and age. If times change, people in the future will totally have the sense to understand this was an ammendment, relevent to the time, and so can completely be ammended back out, right?
What's changed, exactly? The founding fathers urged people to keep cannons as private property.
Besides I want my stea... er, my Blackbird bomber.
Anyway, if the law were like programming, half the Supreme court (those who consider the constitution a "living document" ) would be like a compiler which alters the code at runtime.
But I think it's a reliable thing to consider. A lot of speech recognition, even with human beings, is iterpolation based on context.
Try giving a speech to a class, and then getting feedback on what you said. The degree to which they misunderstood things is amazing.
Even if you could talk and type at the same speed, typing is still considerably more accurate, at least for areas which require large amounts of precise information.
It's innovative to increase the resolving power of space sattelites, GPS systems, heat vision, etc.
It isnt' easy to have timing good enough to configure an array of sattelites to operate as a single telescope.
Intelligent scanning of communications requires plenty of innovation.
for example, or compare FOSS to MS
I like FOSS, I think it's critical to giving entrenched monopolies like MS some serious competition. But AFAIK programs like The Gimp and Audacity don't seem to have many features that aren't already present in commercial software.
Not if the US's survival is threatened, perhaps. But what do you think the US would give to be able to disarm N. Korea without having to go through all this icky diplomacy.
There's still the threat of nuclear proliferation, so even if terrorists\insurgents\the reistance etc. can't BEAT the US they can certainly harm and threaten it.
I agree with you that most industries don't think long term. It's been a few monopolies, the govt. included, who have both the desire and protection from the free market who have been able to make the major leaps ahead.
Slashdot Mirror
Now what if you plugged in the new tuner to the old connections, and suddenly its display read: "Sure, I have a two-plug RCA input, but it's not actually connected to anything, so you can plug in an RCA jack but no sound will come out". That's what having a method that throws MethodNotSupport is like: the jack -- or member function name -- is there, but the implementation is not.
Hi, I'm from the RIAA. We're fascinated by your proposal and we'd like your help in implementing this new functionality-crippling techno...oh, were you just speaking hypothetically?
Put a tethered lamb in front of a cave with fresh running water and see if the human would rather die than kill and eat the lamb. If you kill the lamb, if you'd rather die, then well and good - I respect your principles whilst simultaneously denouncing you as a fool. If you kill and eat the lamb, everything comes down to a matter of degree - when is it acceptable to eat meat and when is it not? That's an arbitrary decision made by an individual based on his/her preconceptions. No one decision is any more "right" than any other since the decision is a personal one.
While I eat meat myself, I'm not sure I buy your moral logic. If I were starving, I would be willing to steal food. Theft is still wrong. But stealing food is better than starving to death.
If we're forced into it, sometimes we have to choose the lesser of two evils. But we shouldn't let that choice establish a precedent. We shouldn't say "If it's okay to kill in self defence, then you can kill anyone any time you want as well."
To a person who believed that an animal has rights, the decision to eat meat would not be a personal one since it would involve another being. The decision to eat meat is only 'personal' if you don't consider the creature being eaten to have rights in the situation.
The law, of course, recognizes the decision as personal since it only recognizes people as subjects and animals are mostly considered property which is used as people see fit - though there are some animal cruelty laws.
I have nothing against eating animals either, but 'survival of the fittest' is not a moral philisophy in any sense of the word. It is pure power relations, i.e. "you can kill someone if it helps you and they can't punish you for doing it."
I worry when people use it to 'justify' anything.
Quite a few homeopathic medicines have been proven to be helpful based on lab studies.
Check out tumeric (or it's derivative coumarin) on pubmed. Quercetin (found in apples and garlic).
Garlic itself, for that matter. And a host of other organic compounds. These ingredients are active and helpful, though not often as powerful as the stuff you get behind the counter.
I suppose it means you could use the line; "Do you know that if a guy eats enough pineapple, his jizz tastes like a pina colada."
If she denies it, then she's obviously gone down on a pineapple eating guy before and you can tease her about that.
"Mary told me that if you go down on a guy who's been eating pineapples it doesn't really make him taste any different..." etc.
If not, just tell her you'll prove it to her later on.
>>Hasn't this tech been show to be damaging to Ham radios? Something that is usually very helpful in times of emergency, when phones and sometimes power is even out?
Well, if you're only keeping your HAM for emergencies, then I have your perfect solution. If there's an emergency which knocks out the power, THEN you can use your HAM radio.
The IP laws that you referenced weren't worth the paper that they were written on when I went to China. Rule of law in China is secondary to the power of your family.
Online gaming in China, or at least Jiangsu - seemed much like in the US - Warcract, counterstrike, playstation, etc.
Seriously, have you been to the country? Do you have friends there? If so, I welcome your opinion. If not, I think you're relying far far far too much on published news sources, which are not a reliable way to get to know the country. Laws, govt. statistics from China and news releases are just so much PR, one of China's many exports. There is a far wider gap between what people do and what the govt. wants in China than even in the US.
When I was there, there was a van with the words "Intellectual Property Enforcement" driving around one time, or somthing to that effect. Written in English. Who could read it? Only foreigners. That kind of thing speaks volumes about the Chinese mentality.
There was an IP case around 2004 - I can't remember its contents - where China filed an international suit and won. It was a face saving way of signaling that they may recognize international copyrights. However as of 2003-2004 the government was not making any serious effort to enforce IP law. An arrest or two every few months, and everyone else can do as they please in broad daylight.
China will only be motivated to enforce IP laws when it starts to have more IP to enforce. It was the same when the US was starting out.
Laws which exist on paper but are not enforced are not laws.
All I can say is; go to China and see what any of these laws are worth to you.
China recently made some IP concessions, but I don't know how they're being enforced. It happened less than a year ago.
Okay, I've spent too much time arguing on Yahoo boards and have become rather imprecise. Yes, the US is a democratic republic. I've just gotten used to people saying "we're free and they aren't" etc. to justify their own supposed superiority. Knee jerk reaction. Sorry.
Personally, I think it's China who is taking the 'long view,' somthing that the Chinese are known for. They entice companies with short term profits, but the end result is that the Chinese will have their industrial technology. These companies going to China are either selling themselves out or investing in their competition.
Once these companies are knee deep in Chinese territory, China has an established history of selling them short.
In the Chinese view, this is the time when "sheep eat people." Just as various attempts to starve the southern states to feed the industrial north led to the American civil war, China is working to exploit their agricultural base in order to get cheap currency to buy foreign goods. In short, they're doing whatever they can to get industrial technology and the foreign currency that they need to buy advanced weapons.
Add to this the fact that China is massively corrupt, and it becomes clear why this huge influx of money isn't creating the basis for democracy.
Government (at the risk of sounding stuffy here) is pretty much a formalization of existing power relations. And China hasn't created a broad middle class. They're where we were at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution with Robber Barons, cheap labor, etc.
Also, I think some of this "globalization" trend is an effort by Western companies to counteract the power of unions and drive wages down. With industries in several labor pools, each working below capacity, any labor shortage in one pool can be made up for by switching to another.
Having been to China, I can say that there is certainly a market for high tech gadgets in the cities. The purchase of cars has soared. The roads can't take it. Internet bars are everywhere. There are more cell phones there than in the US. High tech stores run a brisk business. But you can't make software since there are no patents and so much readily available pirated software.
Don't believe any of this stuff about the Chinese switching to Linux. In sensitive govt. operations, maybe. But everywhere I went they were running pirated copies of windows.
Of course, I taught in Nanjing, which is in Jiangsu ( the wealthiest province in China) and the other provices are much different. Heck, even the rural areas of Nanjing are different. I guess what I'm trying to say is that 3rd world countries aren't typified by poverty as much as extreme disparity of wealth. There is a market for high end goods.
The Chinese 'Communist' party is closer to 'fascist' now. Chinese are going over Mao's little red book for business tips.
What China is proving today is that free market capitalism doesn't inherently lead toward freedom.
While I'd agree with that, China is still a third world country outside of a few major cities.
Of course, China is democratic at the local level.
And America is only so democratic at the national level - we're effectivly dominated by the two major parties, and have proven ourselves unable to elect anyone except the people they put forward.
I guess it's all in how you define freedom. While China still ain't that great a place to live, they do have more freedoms now that 10 years ago. For example, China recently lifted the restriction saying you couldn't sleep with someone unless you were married to them. 15 years ago or so, this law was heavily enforced.
As much as we're indoctrinated to believe it, "freedom" and "democracy" are not absolutes. China has some democracy... but not enough. Their freedom has definitely been increasing as well.
In terms of freedom, China has some freedoms that the US doesn't have - freedom from patents. Freedom from required proscriptions. Freedom from consumer protections. Freedom to buy fireworks and use them outside of major cities. Freedom to buy alcohol and cigarettes without a license or age requirement. For whatever those things are worth... Though I'm not attempting to argue that they're "freer" than the US is. They still have a lot of regulations they have to follow.
Organization + gathering helps the more powerful adversary.
But when you're a weak enemy fighting a strong enemy, hierarchical organization means that your leaders get targeted and killed. The key is to coordinate movements without becoming too organized.
In these kinds of wars, most people are often innocent civilians. The weaker enemy can sometimes gain an advantage by coaxing the stronger enemy to attack blindly. The effect is to radicalize the otherwise innocent and apathetic population when bystandars are killed. This is what Sinn Fein did, for instance, in Ireland.
yes, I'm bitter because I am putting in hours today
;)
I notice you didn't say that you were working today, though.
Welcome to Slashdot.
China nowadays is about as red as a smurf.
Chinese people are pouring over Mao's red book for business secrets.
The whole country is separating back into classes.
It think it'd be easier to argue for extra pay\promotions based on your accomplishments?
While I agree with you, I think the spirit of your reply is different from the GP.
3.1.1 Adding guns. Everyone should be allowed a gun. It makes perfect sense in this day and age. If times change, people in the future will totally have the sense to understand this was an ammendment, relevent to the time, and so can completely be ammended back out, right?
He seems to be saying that times changed, not that guns changed. I have no problem with limiting "The Right to Bear Arms" to any weapon roughly as powerful as what was available in 1776 (though safer to use.) But there are some people who want to go further than that, and try to argue that the amendment is 'anitquated.'
Thanks for the info. The blackbird was stealth too, though. But the Nighthawk was the first, you're right, so it's the one which is usually called "stealth". *gingerly hands you your nit back*
http://www.rentamark.com/sample/psb1.htm
He has about 100 common phrases done up as very cheap logos. I'm wondering if he's going to use these as the basis for lawsuits eventually.
There's gotta be a way to retaliate against this guy.
http://rentamark.com/
And remember to hold down the "Shift" key when you hit "refresh"
Mr. Stoller's and opposers' litigation strategy of delay, harassment and even falsifying documents in other cases is well documented. Leo Stoller, has also been sanctioned, individually, for making material misrepresentations to the Board regarding an applicant's alleged consent to extensions of time.
b -week-of-may-12-2003.html
http://trademarks.gusmanolaw.com/2003/06/from-tta
1.5: Hmm. How did we miss rape? Technically you're not stealing anything physical. If she's unmarried, you're not coveting anything. OK, we'll add rape.
In biblical times, the girl would belong to her father or her husband.
So we decided to release 2.0: The Magna Carter.
A cross between Jimmy Carter and the Magna Carta?
The king can't stop you from growing peanuts?
Everyone should be allowed a gun. It makes perfect sense in this day and age. If times change, people in the future will totally have the sense to understand this was an ammendment, relevent to the time, and so can completely be ammended back out, right?
What's changed, exactly? The founding fathers urged people to keep cannons as private property.
Besides I want my stea... er, my Blackbird bomber.
Anyway, if the law were like programming, half the Supreme court (those who consider the constitution a "living document" ) would be like a compiler which alters the code at runtime.
But I think it's a reliable thing to consider. A lot of speech recognition, even with human beings, is iterpolation based on context.
Try giving a speech to a class, and then getting feedback on what you said. The degree to which they misunderstood things is amazing.
Even if you could talk and type at the same speed, typing is still considerably more accurate, at least for areas which require large amounts of precise information.
Imagine a beowulf cluster of ME!
He's worried it'll reboot suddenly and everyone will see the Mac startup screen.
It's innovative to increase the resolving power of space sattelites, GPS systems, heat vision, etc.
It isnt' easy to have timing good enough to configure an array of sattelites to operate as a single telescope.
Intelligent scanning of communications requires plenty of innovation.
for example, or compare FOSS to MS
I like FOSS, I think it's critical to giving entrenched monopolies like MS some serious competition. But AFAIK programs like The Gimp and Audacity don't seem to have many features that aren't already present in commercial software.
Nobody can really outstrength them.
Not if the US's survival is threatened, perhaps. But what do you think the US would give to be able to disarm N. Korea without having to go through all this icky diplomacy.
There's still the threat of nuclear proliferation, so even if terrorists\insurgents\the reistance etc. can't BEAT the US they can certainly harm and threaten it.
I agree with you that most industries don't think long term. It's been a few monopolies, the govt. included, who have both the desire and protection from the free market who have been able to make the major leaps ahead.