Why should Apple, for SELLING some HARDWARE to you, be entitled to intrude between you and a vendor of software, and impose artificial technical obstacles to software installation onto said hardware of which they haven't pre-approved, in order that they may lay claims upon the transaction and take a cut because they have injected themselves so insidiously by their technical impositions and pronouncement of disallowing installations unless first reviewed by them, and benefiting them?
They are grabbing at your rights ("your" being those who aren't duped to think this is a "service" rather than self-serving, favoring Apple), and probably lobbying our politicians to protect this pretentious stance that it is lawful, and the rest of the industry is largely trying to aid and abet and copy that "business" "strategy". At least with Google, Android means none of the hardware makers can fragment a system in their own favor without suffering consequences, Android is open enough that no single entity can very effectively impose such measures as those of Apple and pretense that because they sold you the device, they have the right to dictate how you may or may not use it. And with Android, third-party software is not only easily developed, by by default there is that little preferences option to "enable third-party software" (i.e. outside the app store).
What happened to being critical on/.? Is it time to move-on, or to start working with fellow nerds to track how many posters here are shills? And perhaps just as important? When does someone, even unpaid, uncontacted, undirected by some entity, become a shill for that entity if the brainwashing like "our buttrape [of you] is service [to you]" takes root and they start spreading that propaganda in their own general conversation?
I was curious whether others thought this of them, or if I was just being judgmental and assuming my critical abilities were better than they are. And this had me thinking I didn't want to speak and make a fool of myself as well as perhaps lower a reputation unjustly.
But CNET seems to be something easily gamed by products and companies, or perhaps that their reviewers are just automatically largely positive--maybe to get the products to review? Their reviews also seem very shallow.
In particular it concerned me where one finds questionable east European software that other sources indicate is dangerous, but CNET offered just gloating reviews and links their site.
Still not sure that my critical abilities or judgments formed upon them are as good as I hope, but there, I offered some input (at least here). Thanks for sharing. Though I would actually like to hear more about why their integrity is lacking.
Actually the laws dictate that the records not be divulged en masse; they're meant for law enforcement, and they're probably restricted this way because the permitting and licensing schemes already don't pass Constitutional muster: keeping how much can be divulged to a minimum is one way to give pretext that they should be acceptable.
The [Constitutional] lawyers I know are sad they don't live in New York (and now this state) because the lawsuit not only on behalf of the people whose information was divulged to the public by this paper would be great, but that against the State (note that when the government is merely incompetent in pursuing a function, it has immunity; when it violates its statutes or steps outside the bounds of the Constitution, it waives/loses it) for violating the laws and procedures regarding FOIA requests and how information pertaining to gun registration should be handled or not handled has them salivating.
How often is it that unmerited shootings (I'm excluding shootings that take place against aggressors) occur "in the neighborhood" inter-neighbor as opposed to a public space or within one's own home? Do you actually come into contact with all those people in suburbia where most people and their families just let alone all else around them? And how much further could your stretched logic be taken to ban almost anything else? I think when people ask and answer these questions, your "reasoning" proves specious.
Regards, JBB
It did say something along the lines of "We told these people they'd be anonymous." So there is an important issue of informed consent here: the researchers were wrong when they were getting permission. Hopefully no lawyers hear about this.
It'll only be a problem if the lawyers twist things as usual; if they didn't offer a 100% guarantee I'd say the lawyers should be toothless in society: substance over form, and propriety over vagueness, "anonymous" is only so until someone OUTS you.
To go on the attack against Republicans, here in Texas, we (the taxpayers)...
I just want to point-out that this injection of politics is what keeps our public intellect in the crapper: I'm glad to hear about the good-ol'-boys-ism among Republicans in the sense that I know who to oppose, but in the American socio-political discourse community this kind of insertion has an implicit function of asserting that the other major party that sits opposed to them are on the side of right: I lived across the obudsman of a certain Democratic senator in the State of Colorado and you know what? The Democrats are politicians too: scumbags, much like the lawyers who currently run the judicial system, talking to themselves how wonderful it is and how it's not about justice for the individual, but protecting rights over long periods of time: "abortion of justice" is only said when the media and public demands it, but they talk to themselves about how "the process took its course": when the "social" programs like social services do injustices as heinous as has been done to your first guy, it takes year to get the "children" back, who by then often aren't children, and it's worse than the judicial system, however, because as an administrative body they combine functions of all three branches and essentially judge themselves: and try to get your day in court and the courts say "you have to follow the process of the administration", and once you do they often say "we defer because of their process", and all of that was intentional:
I simply oppose the leftists, democrats, and progressives of this nation because their statism crosses party lines: and hence the bare, minimal difference between the parties, who simply seek the same outcomes via different means. At least the Republicans don't advocate forcing everyone to pay for abortions through taxes and health care plans that punish private businesses for hiring and private citizens for not engaging in commerce--but you know what? They don't "right now", and I know why: because it's not politically expedient. More fundamentally, of course, they are just a reflection of the spineless, unprincipled, morass that is the moral and intellectual thought of the American people, who have, you know, a form of self-righteousness, but at the end of the day want their t.v.--"shut up kids!"
Anyway, most here probably know that Skype is a modified peer-to-peer client, leveraging the computers and bandwidth of the installed base to function, rather than requiring a large amount of dedicated hardware: it's the sort of decentralization the web's designers and the earlier dreamers meant to be common, but which isn't, and perhaps the only example of such software that is not only decentralized (thus "eggheadedly" designed)--though it can rely on centralized machines--but in common use among ordinary people (because, you know, it just works; not always perfectly, but most idiots can use it).
Perhaps this move has more to do with the dropping-calls part: due to the design, by installing Skype everywhere, there will be far less call drops? Suddenly having millions of extra nodes (the XBoxes) could be a great boon for relaying information on the Skype network, not to mention lightening burdens on the bandwidth and machines that Microsoft has been using for its other communications services.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
It wouldn't be a bad way to go, except the courts routinely ignore the constitution (at all levels) in the name of statecraft. Administrators and leftist-trained lawyers and judges don't "jibe" with "dead white men" who "owned slaves"--apparently even the ones who bought, trained, educated, prepared, fretted for the well being of, and did all possible they could to ready, their slaves to be set free and be not just free, but capable of taking care of themselves in a brutally harsh world: Washington actually pulled this off, though when you point this out it changes to "permitted slavery in the Constitution": always another excuse to ignore the intent behind the law while claiming to uphold the law.
Then again, the intent of the public schools is not to serve the public: guys like Rockefeller wanted them to create "a national identity", and their curricula and textbooks are designed by committee precisely to prevent any one group's peeves slip through (evolution and sex-ed are exceptions, but as Diane Ravitch has written, not by much): not a lot of substantive material that can teach kids to probe deeply, consider carefully, and make them argue and learn to spot BS is present, therefore. The reasons behind our educational system and its design are poor bases for education, and throughout the 70's parents who figured it out also figured out they don't exist to serve the public interest but that of the teachers, unions, and politicians they support: the hordes are still trying to equate it, without actual facts in any given case, to "child abuse", not just teachers, but 'academics' (those raised by school) in general; in several states parents networked with cops to remove children from jurisdictions just before the state bore down upon them for kidnapping purposes when administrators and teachers accused parents of "child abuse" on no grounds except "those kids we know about aren't be educated by US."
Besides that, however, where does "privacy" fit-in with "'public' school"; how does it pertain to children over whom the schools exercise authority "in loco parentis"? Excepting rape and molestation, do parents have a requirement to offer "personal space"? I'll offer you an illustration: parents are liable (often criminally) for childrens' actions, and a lawyer I know was consulted by a client with a "rebellious teen" who would walk-out every night like she has rights equivalent to an adult: "you're rich, so build a padded room and straight-jacket her", was the lawyer's reply. "Isn't that child abuse!!!?" "Well social services might try to claim so, and police may show-up unlawfully demanding you surrender her and any weapons, but that's why you hired me" (he's an uber-competent friggin' lawyer) "and I'll be waiting with heavier weaponry than they have, letting them know that unlawful entry and forcible kidnapping gives us grounds to shoot and protect your child".
That may sound "crazy" when all branches and administrative agencies come to an agreed conclusion that you have no right to defend yourself against police even when they aggressively break into your house (doesn't always apply when, like this lawyer, you know them, Senators, governors, perhaps heads of certain military departments...), but the long story made short is, the kid actually was "incarcerated" for a while, until she realized her predicament: obey dad or lose all privileges (note, not "freedom"). It's one of the few times I've heard regarding a case that the administrative and police state would normally flip its **** and override parental rights in the name of "rebellion...it's just a phase", but then most of the highly successf
The astroturf is because of the billion unconstitutional laws and infringements on right of speech and act that you have to be careful: just filling out forms is, according to lawyers, "practicing law" these days--and as they possess an all-powerful guild which everything else references, we're screwed until they're all incarcerated as enemies of the nation, lawful government, States, and people. And I'm sure Britain would love to pick-up that tech too.
Regards to like minds and kin across the pond.
Dear rest of the world. As an American, my government's behavior (both parties) is often just as disconcerting to me as you, despite being patriotic and supportive of many things of which the current administration is apologetic. Please note, this is not an official communication on behalf of my nation or its government, is not necessarily representative of any of its policies, positions, or official propaganda, and that I am not an official, quasi, or de facto spokesperson authorized to act in any such capacity to speak for official bodies. It should also not be construed as providing aid, comfort, rhetorical support, or any other assistance to any enemy of these United States or their peoples, and should they be taken in such a manner, have been misconstrued and misappropriated, and perhaps been used to violate my copyright. These statements also do not constitute any legal advice or counsel, and should not be used as such, and should you need such work or counsel, you should seek a qualified professional--a practitioner of the law....
(See what I did there, know why, and what it means about this nation, its elites, actual status of freedoms like that enshrined in Amendment I, of right to do certain things without fearing guilds, etc.?)
I think it would be awesome for code to be published which has the functions (that Norway's government hates) commented out, with stern warnings "don't compile with this code removed from comments, or these functions could become present."
Why can't we get copies of our ebooks when we buy the dead-tree version?
Because you they want you to buy it twice. (Unless your smart like Cory Doctorow who lets you have the ebook free to try before you buy the paper one).
Also, they're just another beast altogether (if designed with any care for the user at all): many books are published with MS Office: even complex ones. It's the de facto standard for a dead-tree industry (book publishing), and writers know its features: I remember huge reviews on how crappy MS Office is for this...but still remains unmatched in features, layout, etc. by competing products: Open/Libre Office, as usual, may be able to open files, but not ease certain things that, despite craptacularness in MS Office, MS Office nevertheless can do. (I can't, and I apologize, list off the majority of those details anymore--even having encountered many of them myself: some do follow below).
Yes they want that second purchase, but if they could spur more dead-tree by offering the latter, they might change mind except for the problem of a decent publishing software. There is no reliable conversion from MS Office (or anything else that can something half as complex as easy for someone not a comp sci, physics, or math guy who doesn't mind LaTex) to an eBook format: many many problems; layout is also not reliable in conversions that, purely as file conversions (where one file becomes displayable on the other), are successes. Screen sizes also differ, and people WANT the damn pages, not the river-of-endlessness ****: part of the reason for books is having something a structure to wrap one's mind around.
Until you can reliable and easily manipulating footnoting/endnoting (and mix them) in a competing product, reliable build and maintain highly complex indices, tables of contents, and book sections, styles throughout a document, or section of document--and do so without undesirably mixing them, and a whole raff of other functions that writers (who don't want some extremely simple layout meant for the web) writers depend on, not to mention re-building the many other tools that all center on MS Office, plus know that layouts will be pretty reliable across devices, e.g. re-flowing without jacking-up tables and readability, I doubt eBooks will typically be available, or reliable, or less expensive...unless produced as PDFs.
Just don't forget the small businesses: it's not that people are idiots (though they are: I mean it as a statement of reality, not an insult) who don't want to learn or resist (though they do), it's that the small-to-mid are often pressed for time: I know a guy who is worried about taking extra seconds per transaction in the day to save hours at the end of the week when he has to do all his books over one day: if he took extra seconds by snapping a photo of estimates, invoices, etc., to send so I can do the paperwork immediately (or at the end of each day), it will literally save him a whole day: but per-day that's costly time, a bit like the business that can save money by buying bulk or something more expensive and saving money or time (by having higher quality to be more productive), but having cash-flow problems that prevent it: real constraints by various factors that make something that's great in aggregate perhaps a non-options in the particulars required. : (
All that is said to illustrate this: many businesses out there have people, whether the biz is big or small, who are desperate each day for time, and can use what they already know very effectively, but not something else: besides Windows, this means MS Office, Quickbooks, [insert some random piece of industry-standard software that only runs on Windows here]: a great deal of things out there are idiotic and can build-software-for-a-certain-platform only, software that is great perhaps in what it does, and which isn't being replaced any time soon because it's what people are used to. I used to hear how "if only Office and Quickbooks ran on Linux, people could ditch Windows: I've learned these days it isn't so simple.
There's also that cash-flow issue to consider: re-training would be worth it later, but destroy the business interrim. : (
Why would you want to integrate further into Microsoft crap? I mean, I get it for the likes of XBox etc., but if you're one of those using Windows only because Ubuntu screwed the pooch, you need some de facto industry software of one sort or another, things like that, keeping your identities and services separate rather than getting tied-in is the better idea: these massive companies oftn seem to be run by "nice" sociopaths, so giving them a nice, integrated window into your life is not a good idea.
I don't know if it's the lack of standardization that's the problem anymore. There are a lot of standard protocols, if not exactly packages, in use, though that's not exactly the idea. But more, even Windows perpetually breaks things (even if in "just" tiny ways) update to update, and I've seen more and more of it lately: maybe it's the brain-drain since Balmer + Google starting to poach talent, or management-marketing trying to run the place (along with some seriously customer-inattentive UI designers) in the stead of the nerds running the development end, but something's up: weird quirks in long-functioning parts of Windows are popping-up.
Then again, I'm talking Win 7, and it could be intentional. Also, Windows for years didn't have a well-documented API, and broke that all the time (providing notices just before or after for popular software), and I bet still evolve it pretty quickly.
If we get Debian, Ubuntu and Derivatives, and other organizations that share code, to actually sit-down and commit to documenting what they plan to do, do as they do it, have done...I mean quite seriously, maybe we'll see a lot more on "Linux".
Maybe we could, you know, as supporters of open source (if not all the inanites like "let's jettison highly-functional, well-tested, reliable code and features for alpha-quality shinies to imitate highly-engineered, heavily-refined Mac interfaces that actually have coherence technologies underneath and well-documented hooks"), petition companies like this, which rely on OpenGL or who port something complex to it, to have their deveopers document all they learned in the process, and be available for others who can then formalize it into useful documentation for other developers? It would be hard as hell, and they might just be doing WINE to avoid themselves having to mess too much with OpenGL, but you never know what might happen.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but how could this possibly be a bad thing? First, I doubt that 500,000 kilograms would actually collapse the precious status of gold catastrophically; there's a lot of gold out there, a lot of obsession and history with valuing it greatly, and frankly the powers that be would probably, as is done with diamonds, lock the "excess" in vaults and release slowly, over time.
But presuming America called "BS" and demanded disbursement, and gold prices suffered serious devaluation, we could see a whole helluva lot more applications than we currently do, far reduced prices on goods, and more R&D: it's a great conductor, remember? : D
Weird. When I search on Google the first three million results are usually ad farms that have no bearing on what I was searching for, and then about ten million results in I find someone's personal web page with the information I actually wanted.
Do them a favor. Since you're looking for that info, perhaps you have a related or semi-related (in some way) blog or site? Write an article with related content to that you found, incorporating and expanding on it in some way. Put links within that content, in meaningful contexts, with words showing for the link relevant to the linked content, within this post or essay of yours. Publish online, and making sure to link to from blogger or something, to get it fast-indexed by Google and raise the pagerank of the site that was useful to you...
And you're done. Yes, I do this for people and sites out there. And I agree, I often find what's needed on obscure non-corporate/farm/business/institutional pages.
Explain then why on pay cable television we're still subjected to ads?
Simple. On the major channels by massive conglomerates, it's so they can make record windfall profits. On smaller channels, it's either to make-up for the loss the carrier takes for having them to attract certain customers, or because the cost to air and make just enough (if lucky) is split.
Source: I worked in corporate's backyard at Dish Network: hell to work for, great experience, intriguing-yet-dickish CEO: go Charlie!
I've got an idea: use file higher compression on Youtube. Make users' computers do the decompression--buffer and don't play them immediately upon loading the page if necessary. If someone's computer is too old...it's probably a problem with the coding. If after refining the hell out of it, making it uber efficient, try ffmpeg/vlc. If there's still a problem, either the programmers are among the most incompetent ever (after all, VLC runs on tiny ARM chips with not very many MHz of power) or their system is just too old: probably a bad idea to EVER accept the latter explanation, though: too much wiggle room for increasingly bureaucratic companies that can't seem to accomplish much.
Note that these days, after successfully killing off or neglecting practically every major product or company bought, from all the social stuff, to feedburner, to blogger, to Wave (that was bought, not an in-house project), I was wondering about Google on such things, until stumbling upon the explication that Google has a "sluggish engineering culture", i.e. vs. "a hacker culture" (http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/19/technology/google_plus_facebook/index.htm), and you know, that seems plausible: I hope they'll fix it. (That and the massive boneheadedness that is trying to eliminate personas on the world wide frickin' web and becoming an identity clearing-house to market users to advertisers like Facebook does.)
Actually, the case used to justify software patents ruled, as parent suggests should be, not that software can be patented, nor a specific piece of software integral to a machine can be patented, but that a process including software in its functions can be patented--the patent is not invalidated because of presence of software. Its on this case, wrested and twisted to inanity, that lower courts have fabricated "software patents": anymore, don't expect good behavior out of the judicial system, "...only for a moral and religious people" and all (note "religious" in an old sense means reverence, which most of those in branches of government--constitutional and administrative; the leeches that attach themselves for good or ill--whether lawyers, lobbyists, servicers, providers of goods agents; today, are not so of the laws as intended when written).
It never ceases to amaze me that when someone points this sort of thing out, it's like a revelation nobody has thought about: all the talk about equality and equivocations of so many things in our society in the name of the likes of social justice, though several generations now may not have even heard the name of such a theory or similar ones espoused on high in academia and among philosophers, which are, unfortunately, also highly important practitioners of disciplines to the training and education of lawyers (and therefore our politicians, administrators, and the kind of people they want, change educational policy to produce, and demand): they've just been "indoctrinated" (which contrary to popular use, in the realms of educational teaching and law, and discussion of education, is perfectly acceptable because it's what education actually does) according to principles, and in concepts and modes of thinking, that suit those theories. But something that undermines observation of nature in favor of ideals can be neither social nor just.
Thanks for saying so. I was about to add that the damn rock is just too darn cold--not to mention out or reach until we can figure how to create a bigger and more stable electromagnetic field than the one surrounding earth: given size and strength of the dynamo theorized to be inside the earth necessary to generate the one whose benefits we so enjoy, that's a long way off: likely impossible.
Even then, still too cold: I bet chances are better for terraforming the moon.
Of course, if this huge tax payer subsidy is removed then other forms of transportation would immediately become viable.
Of course, no they wouldn't--not in a way we could stomach: perhaps from the standpoint of those with a set of points that are fixed from which to depart and arrive to, but all else would be screwed out of a livelihood for the loss of flexibility. I'm damn conservative on many issues, and I for one am in favor of subsidizing the roads: in particular because the poor are so well benefited by having easy mobility available to them. You know how much life you can loose on a train or bus?
We also lack a command economy and requisite mores and expectations of competence to get major projects done right now. Let the roads stand, with lots of drivers, to keep men free, and make mobility and flexibility available to the very poor: to put this into perspective, it tooks three years (because I was paying down debts and of course paying the bills) to save enough for a car, and I rode that damn bus every day at least two ways, sometimes including a light rail, buying from a TFSA deposited into pre-tax by deduction from a paycheck pre-tax, and working many hours each day: I got enough sleep to live on that bus.
Note that buses and, as I mentioned, light rail: the latter is referred to as the worst roller coaster ever, and serves only a narrow strip of the city; politically it was called "high speed rail" and used by the president as an example for the nation to follow, but it travels at 55mph (when you're lucky), isn't well-constructed, is not even half of the original idealistic plan or promise to the taxpayers who voted for it, and has to keep stopping: still takes hours to get anywhere on the damn "high speed" thing.
And the buses are themselves plagued with problems: need upgrades, require electronic cards or having money ready (or "ride the next one") for efficiency's sake, and so on, but are funded by a tax approved by the businesses in this state. Maybe if we get an influx of 20 million people to this metro areas such that the roads would be unbearable, with most of them working in downtown, the light rail would be viable. Right now the subsidy per rider is about $12 or so.
It is improving as it expands, but frankly we could have done better to buying everyone who must rely on these systems a personal auto, used, in good working condition. Days I had to ride the buses and light rail, btw, cost about five to six bucks (dividing the kind of pass required) and two or more hours (at one point, 4+): factoring my current driving time and the expenses associated, I pay about the same(!) I cover far more miles, am far more productive, have some life left over in the day, etc.: so again, mass transit can be just dumb in a place as unconcentrated as America--getting moreso as telecommunicating becomes more common.
On the other hand, if we hand-over roads to the government-private colluders/cartels (which I'm sure cross political boundaries and interests), mass transit might really become viable for being cheaper: the toll roads never seem to actually get handed over as promised, are excessively priced, and avoided by drivers like the plague: but again, while you might see that as a plus in the name of the "the environment", it would be devastating to our society.
Slashdot Mirror
What "service"?
/.? Is it time to move-on, or to start working with fellow nerds to track how many posters here are shills? And perhaps just as important? When does someone, even unpaid, uncontacted, undirected by some entity, become a shill for that entity if the brainwashing like "our buttrape [of you] is service [to you]" takes root and they start spreading that propaganda in their own general conversation?
Comments like yours and this one, http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3430285&cid=42779089, miss a more important point.
Why should Apple, for SELLING some HARDWARE to you, be entitled to intrude between you and a vendor of software, and impose artificial technical obstacles to software installation onto said hardware of which they haven't pre-approved, in order that they may lay claims upon the transaction and take a cut because they have injected themselves so insidiously by their technical impositions and pronouncement of disallowing installations unless first reviewed by them, and benefiting them?
They are grabbing at your rights ("your" being those who aren't duped to think this is a "service" rather than self-serving, favoring Apple), and probably lobbying our politicians to protect this pretentious stance that it is lawful, and the rest of the industry is largely trying to aid and abet and copy that "business" "strategy". At least with Google, Android means none of the hardware makers can fragment a system in their own favor without suffering consequences, Android is open enough that no single entity can very effectively impose such measures as those of Apple and pretense that because they sold you the device, they have the right to dictate how you may or may not use it. And with Android, third-party software is not only easily developed, by by default there is that little preferences option to "enable third-party software" (i.e. outside the app store).
What happened to being critical on
I was curious whether others thought this of them, or if I was just being judgmental and assuming my critical abilities were better than they are. And this had me thinking I didn't want to speak and make a fool of myself as well as perhaps lower a reputation unjustly.
But CNET seems to be something easily gamed by products and companies, or perhaps that their reviewers are just automatically largely positive--maybe to get the products to review? Their reviews also seem very shallow.
In particular it concerned me where one finds questionable east European software that other sources indicate is dangerous, but CNET offered just gloating reviews and links their site.
Still not sure that my critical abilities or judgments formed upon them are as good as I hope, but there, I offered some input (at least here). Thanks for sharing. Though I would actually like to hear more about why their integrity is lacking.
Or perhaps better-ish
where "anti" stands as in Greek for "in place of": a religion of "I'm not religious and religious is terrible DARWIN AHKBHARRRR!!!!!!"
Actually the laws dictate that the records not be divulged en masse; they're meant for law enforcement, and they're probably restricted this way because the permitting and licensing schemes already don't pass Constitutional muster: keeping how much can be divulged to a minimum is one way to give pretext that they should be acceptable.
The [Constitutional] lawyers I know are sad they don't live in New York (and now this state) because the lawsuit not only on behalf of the people whose information was divulged to the public by this paper would be great, but that against the State (note that when the government is merely incompetent in pursuing a function, it has immunity; when it violates its statutes or steps outside the bounds of the Constitution, it waives/loses it) for violating the laws and procedures regarding FOIA requests and how information pertaining to gun registration should be handled or not handled has them salivating.
Not good reasoning.
How often is it that unmerited shootings (I'm excluding shootings that take place against aggressors) occur "in the neighborhood" inter-neighbor as opposed to a public space or within one's own home? Do you actually come into contact with all those people in suburbia where most people and their families just let alone all else around them? And how much further could your stretched logic be taken to ban almost anything else? I think when people ask and answer these questions, your "reasoning" proves specious. Regards, JBB
It'll only be a problem if the lawyers twist things as usual; if they didn't offer a 100% guarantee I'd say the lawyers should be toothless in society: substance over form, and propriety over vagueness, "anonymous" is only so until someone OUTS you.
To go on the attack against Republicans, here in Texas, we (the taxpayers)...
I just want to point-out that this injection of politics is what keeps our public intellect in the crapper: I'm glad to hear about the good-ol'-boys-ism among Republicans in the sense that I know who to oppose, but in the American socio-political discourse community this kind of insertion has an implicit function of asserting that the other major party that sits opposed to them are on the side of right: I lived across the obudsman of a certain Democratic senator in the State of Colorado and you know what? The Democrats are politicians too: scumbags, much like the lawyers who currently run the judicial system, talking to themselves how wonderful it is and how it's not about justice for the individual, but protecting rights over long periods of time: "abortion of justice" is only said when the media and public demands it, but they talk to themselves about how "the process took its course": when the "social" programs like social services do injustices as heinous as has been done to your first guy, it takes year to get the "children" back, who by then often aren't children, and it's worse than the judicial system, however, because as an administrative body they combine functions of all three branches and essentially judge themselves: and try to get your day in court and the courts say "you have to follow the process of the administration", and once you do they often say "we defer because of their process", and all of that was intentional:
I simply oppose the leftists, democrats, and progressives of this nation because their statism crosses party lines: and hence the bare, minimal difference between the parties, who simply seek the same outcomes via different means. At least the Republicans don't advocate forcing everyone to pay for abortions through taxes and health care plans that punish private businesses for hiring and private citizens for not engaging in commerce--but you know what? They don't "right now", and I know why: because it's not politically expedient. More fundamentally, of course, they are just a reflection of the spineless, unprincipled, morass that is the moral and intellectual thought of the American people, who have, you know, a form of self-righteousness, but at the end of the day want their t.v.--"shut up kids!"
Kudos for fighting those bastards btw.
: D
Anyway, most here probably know that Skype is a modified peer-to-peer client, leveraging the computers and bandwidth of the installed base to function, rather than requiring a large amount of dedicated hardware: it's the sort of decentralization the web's designers and the earlier dreamers meant to be common, but which isn't, and perhaps the only example of such software that is not only decentralized (thus "eggheadedly" designed)--though it can rely on centralized machines--but in common use among ordinary people (because, you know, it just works; not always perfectly, but most idiots can use it). Perhaps this move has more to do with the dropping-calls part: due to the design, by installing Skype everywhere, there will be far less call drops? Suddenly having millions of extra nodes (the XBoxes) could be a great boon for relaying information on the Skype network, not to mention lightening burdens on the bandwidth and machines that Microsoft has been using for its other communications services.
Given
It wouldn't be a bad way to go, except the courts routinely ignore the constitution (at all levels) in the name of statecraft. Administrators and leftist-trained lawyers and judges don't "jibe" with "dead white men" who "owned slaves"--apparently even the ones who bought, trained, educated, prepared, fretted for the well being of, and did all possible they could to ready, their slaves to be set free and be not just free, but capable of taking care of themselves in a brutally harsh world: Washington actually pulled this off, though when you point this out it changes to "permitted slavery in the Constitution": always another excuse to ignore the intent behind the law while claiming to uphold the law.
Then again, the intent of the public schools is not to serve the public: guys like Rockefeller wanted them to create "a national identity", and their curricula and textbooks are designed by committee precisely to prevent any one group's peeves slip through (evolution and sex-ed are exceptions, but as Diane Ravitch has written, not by much): not a lot of substantive material that can teach kids to probe deeply, consider carefully, and make them argue and learn to spot BS is present, therefore. The reasons behind our educational system and its design are poor bases for education, and throughout the 70's parents who figured it out also figured out they don't exist to serve the public interest but that of the teachers, unions, and politicians they support: the hordes are still trying to equate it, without actual facts in any given case, to "child abuse", not just teachers, but 'academics' (those raised by school) in general; in several states parents networked with cops to remove children from jurisdictions just before the state bore down upon them for kidnapping purposes when administrators and teachers accused parents of "child abuse" on no grounds except "those kids we know about aren't be educated by US."
Besides that, however, where does "privacy" fit-in with "'public' school"; how does it pertain to children over whom the schools exercise authority "in loco parentis"? Excepting rape and molestation, do parents have a requirement to offer "personal space"? I'll offer you an illustration: parents are liable (often criminally) for childrens' actions, and a lawyer I know was consulted by a client with a "rebellious teen" who would walk-out every night like she has rights equivalent to an adult: "you're rich, so build a padded room and straight-jacket her", was the lawyer's reply. "Isn't that child abuse!!!?" "Well social services might try to claim so, and police may show-up unlawfully demanding you surrender her and any weapons, but that's why you hired me" (he's an uber-competent friggin' lawyer) "and I'll be waiting with heavier weaponry than they have, letting them know that unlawful entry and forcible kidnapping gives us grounds to shoot and protect your child".
That may sound "crazy" when all branches and administrative agencies come to an agreed conclusion that you have no right to defend yourself against police even when they aggressively break into your house (doesn't always apply when, like this lawyer, you know them, Senators, governors, perhaps heads of certain military departments...), but the long story made short is, the kid actually was "incarcerated" for a while, until she realized her predicament: obey dad or lose all privileges (note, not "freedom"). It's one of the few times I've heard regarding a case that the administrative and police state would normally flip its **** and override parental rights in the name of "rebellion...it's just a phase", but then most of the highly successf
The astroturf is because of the billion unconstitutional laws and infringements on right of speech and act that you have to be careful: just filling out forms is, according to lawyers, "practicing law" these days--and as they possess an all-powerful guild which everything else references, we're screwed until they're all incarcerated as enemies of the nation, lawful government, States, and people. And I'm sure Britain would love to pick-up that tech too. Regards to like minds and kin across the pond.
Dear rest of the world. As an American, my government's behavior (both parties) is often just as disconcerting to me as you, despite being patriotic and supportive of many things of which the current administration is apologetic. Please note, this is not an official communication on behalf of my nation or its government, is not necessarily representative of any of its policies, positions, or official propaganda, and that I am not an official, quasi, or de facto spokesperson authorized to act in any such capacity to speak for official bodies. It should also not be construed as providing aid, comfort, rhetorical support, or any other assistance to any enemy of these United States or their peoples, and should they be taken in such a manner, have been misconstrued and misappropriated, and perhaps been used to violate my copyright. These statements also do not constitute any legal advice or counsel, and should not be used as such, and should you need such work or counsel, you should seek a qualified professional--a practitioner of the law. ...
(See what I did there, know why, and what it means about this nation, its elites, actual status of freedoms like that enshrined in Amendment I, of right to do certain things without fearing guilds, etc.?)
I think it would be awesome for code to be published which has the functions (that Norway's government hates) commented out, with stern warnings "don't compile with this code removed from comments, or these functions could become present."
Also, they're just another beast altogether (if designed with any care for the user at all): many books are published with MS Office: even complex ones. It's the de facto standard for a dead-tree industry (book publishing), and writers know its features: I remember huge reviews on how crappy MS Office is for this...but still remains unmatched in features, layout, etc. by competing products: Open/Libre Office, as usual, may be able to open files, but not ease certain things that, despite craptacularness in MS Office, MS Office nevertheless can do. (I can't, and I apologize, list off the majority of those details anymore--even having encountered many of them myself: some do follow below).
Yes they want that second purchase, but if they could spur more dead-tree by offering the latter, they might change mind except for the problem of a decent publishing software. There is no reliable conversion from MS Office (or anything else that can something half as complex as easy for someone not a comp sci, physics, or math guy who doesn't mind LaTex) to an eBook format: many many problems; layout is also not reliable in conversions that, purely as file conversions (where one file becomes displayable on the other), are successes. Screen sizes also differ, and people WANT the damn pages, not the river-of-endlessness ****: part of the reason for books is having something a structure to wrap one's mind around.
Until you can reliable and easily manipulating footnoting/endnoting (and mix them) in a competing product, reliable build and maintain highly complex indices, tables of contents, and book sections, styles throughout a document, or section of document--and do so without undesirably mixing them, and a whole raff of other functions that writers (who don't want some extremely simple layout meant for the web) writers depend on, not to mention re-building the many other tools that all center on MS Office, plus know that layouts will be pretty reliable across devices, e.g. re-flowing without jacking-up tables and readability, I doubt eBooks will typically be available, or reliable, or less expensive...unless produced as PDFs.
Just don't forget the small businesses: it's not that people are idiots (though they are: I mean it as a statement of reality, not an insult) who don't want to learn or resist (though they do), it's that the small-to-mid are often pressed for time: I know a guy who is worried about taking extra seconds per transaction in the day to save hours at the end of the week when he has to do all his books over one day: if he took extra seconds by snapping a photo of estimates, invoices, etc., to send so I can do the paperwork immediately (or at the end of each day), it will literally save him a whole day: but per-day that's costly time, a bit like the business that can save money by buying bulk or something more expensive and saving money or time (by having higher quality to be more productive), but having cash-flow problems that prevent it: real constraints by various factors that make something that's great in aggregate perhaps a non-options in the particulars required. : (
All that is said to illustrate this: many businesses out there have people, whether the biz is big or small, who are desperate each day for time, and can use what they already know very effectively, but not something else: besides Windows, this means MS Office, Quickbooks, [insert some random piece of industry-standard software that only runs on Windows here]: a great deal of things out there are idiotic and can build-software-for-a-certain-platform only, software that is great perhaps in what it does, and which isn't being replaced any time soon because it's what people are used to. I used to hear how "if only Office and Quickbooks ran on Linux, people could ditch Windows: I've learned these days it isn't so simple.
There's also that cash-flow issue to consider: re-training would be worth it later, but destroy the business interrim. : (
Why would you want to integrate further into Microsoft crap? I mean, I get it for the likes of XBox etc., but if you're one of those using Windows only because Ubuntu screwed the pooch, you need some de facto industry software of one sort or another, things like that, keeping your identities and services separate rather than getting tied-in is the better idea: these massive companies oftn seem to be run by "nice" sociopaths, so giving them a nice, integrated window into your life is not a good idea.
I don't know if it's the lack of standardization that's the problem anymore. There are a lot of standard protocols, if not exactly packages, in use, though that's not exactly the idea. But more, even Windows perpetually breaks things (even if in "just" tiny ways) update to update, and I've seen more and more of it lately: maybe it's the brain-drain since Balmer + Google starting to poach talent, or management-marketing trying to run the place (along with some seriously customer-inattentive UI designers) in the stead of the nerds running the development end, but something's up: weird quirks in long-functioning parts of Windows are popping-up.
Then again, I'm talking Win 7, and it could be intentional. Also, Windows for years didn't have a well-documented API, and broke that all the time (providing notices just before or after for popular software), and I bet still evolve it pretty quickly.
If we get Debian, Ubuntu and Derivatives, and other organizations that share code, to actually sit-down and commit to documenting what they plan to do, do as they do it, have done...I mean quite seriously, maybe we'll see a lot more on "Linux".
Maybe we could, you know, as supporters of open source (if not all the inanites like "let's jettison highly-functional, well-tested, reliable code and features for alpha-quality shinies to imitate highly-engineered, heavily-refined Mac interfaces that actually have coherence technologies underneath and well-documented hooks"), petition companies like this, which rely on OpenGL or who port something complex to it, to have their deveopers document all they learned in the process, and be available for others who can then formalize it into useful documentation for other developers? It would be hard as hell, and they might just be doing WINE to avoid themselves having to mess too much with OpenGL, but you never know what might happen.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but how could this possibly be a bad thing? First, I doubt that 500,000 kilograms would actually collapse the precious status of gold catastrophically; there's a lot of gold out there, a lot of obsession and history with valuing it greatly, and frankly the powers that be would probably, as is done with diamonds, lock the "excess" in vaults and release slowly, over time.
But presuming America called "BS" and demanded disbursement, and gold prices suffered serious devaluation, we could see a whole helluva lot more applications than we currently do, far reduced prices on goods, and more R&D: it's a great conductor, remember? : D
Do them a favor. Since you're looking for that info, perhaps you have a related or semi-related (in some way) blog or site? Write an article with related content to that you found, incorporating and expanding on it in some way. Put links within that content, in meaningful contexts, with words showing for the link relevant to the linked content, within this post or essay of yours. Publish online, and making sure to link to from blogger or something, to get it fast-indexed by Google and raise the pagerank of the site that was useful to you...
And you're done. Yes, I do this for people and sites out there. And I agree, I often find what's needed on obscure non-corporate/farm/business/institutional pages.
Simple. On the major channels by massive conglomerates, it's so they can make record windfall profits. On smaller channels, it's either to make-up for the loss the carrier takes for having them to attract certain customers, or because the cost to air and make just enough (if lucky) is split.
Source: I worked in corporate's backyard at Dish Network: hell to work for, great experience, intriguing-yet-dickish CEO: go Charlie!
I've got an idea: use file higher compression on Youtube. Make users' computers do the decompression--buffer and don't play them immediately upon loading the page if necessary. If someone's computer is too old...it's probably a problem with the coding. If after refining the hell out of it, making it uber efficient, try ffmpeg/vlc. If there's still a problem, either the programmers are among the most incompetent ever (after all, VLC runs on tiny ARM chips with not very many MHz of power) or their system is just too old: probably a bad idea to EVER accept the latter explanation, though: too much wiggle room for increasingly bureaucratic companies that can't seem to accomplish much.
Note that these days, after successfully killing off or neglecting practically every major product or company bought, from all the social stuff, to feedburner, to blogger, to Wave (that was bought, not an in-house project), I was wondering about Google on such things, until stumbling upon the explication that Google has a "sluggish engineering culture", i.e. vs. "a hacker culture" (http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/19/technology/google_plus_facebook/index.htm), and you know, that seems plausible: I hope they'll fix it. (That and the massive boneheadedness that is trying to eliminate personas on the world wide frickin' web and becoming an identity clearing-house to market users to advertisers like Facebook does.)
Actually, the case used to justify software patents ruled, as parent suggests should be, not that software can be patented, nor a specific piece of software integral to a machine can be patented, but that a process including software in its functions can be patented--the patent is not invalidated because of presence of software. Its on this case, wrested and twisted to inanity, that lower courts have fabricated "software patents": anymore, don't expect good behavior out of the judicial system, "...only for a moral and religious people" and all (note "religious" in an old sense means reverence, which most of those in branches of government--constitutional and administrative; the leeches that attach themselves for good or ill--whether lawyers, lobbyists, servicers, providers of goods agents; today, are not so of the laws as intended when written).
It never ceases to amaze me that when someone points this sort of thing out, it's like a revelation nobody has thought about: all the talk about equality and equivocations of so many things in our society in the name of the likes of social justice, though several generations now may not have even heard the name of such a theory or similar ones espoused on high in academia and among philosophers, which are, unfortunately, also highly important practitioners of disciplines to the training and education of lawyers (and therefore our politicians, administrators, and the kind of people they want, change educational policy to produce, and demand): they've just been "indoctrinated" (which contrary to popular use, in the realms of educational teaching and law, and discussion of education, is perfectly acceptable because it's what education actually does) according to principles, and in concepts and modes of thinking, that suit those theories. But something that undermines observation of nature in favor of ideals can be neither social nor just.
Thanks for saying so. I was about to add that the damn rock is just too darn cold--not to mention out or reach until we can figure how to create a bigger and more stable electromagnetic field than the one surrounding earth: given size and strength of the dynamo theorized to be inside the earth necessary to generate the one whose benefits we so enjoy, that's a long way off: likely impossible.
Even then, still too cold: I bet chances are better for terraforming the moon.
Of course, if this huge tax payer subsidy is removed then other forms of transportation would immediately become viable.
Of course, no they wouldn't--not in a way we could stomach: perhaps from the standpoint of those with a set of points that are fixed from which to depart and arrive to, but all else would be screwed out of a livelihood for the loss of flexibility. I'm damn conservative on many issues, and I for one am in favor of subsidizing the roads: in particular because the poor are so well benefited by having easy mobility available to them. You know how much life you can loose on a train or bus?
We also lack a command economy and requisite mores and expectations of competence to get major projects done right now. Let the roads stand, with lots of drivers, to keep men free, and make mobility and flexibility available to the very poor: to put this into perspective, it tooks three years (because I was paying down debts and of course paying the bills) to save enough for a car, and I rode that damn bus every day at least two ways, sometimes including a light rail, buying from a TFSA deposited into pre-tax by deduction from a paycheck pre-tax, and working many hours each day: I got enough sleep to live on that bus.
Note that buses and, as I mentioned, light rail: the latter is referred to as the worst roller coaster ever, and serves only a narrow strip of the city; politically it was called "high speed rail" and used by the president as an example for the nation to follow, but it travels at 55mph (when you're lucky), isn't well-constructed, is not even half of the original idealistic plan or promise to the taxpayers who voted for it, and has to keep stopping: still takes hours to get anywhere on the damn "high speed" thing.
And the buses are themselves plagued with problems: need upgrades, require electronic cards or having money ready (or "ride the next one") for efficiency's sake, and so on, but are funded by a tax approved by the businesses in this state. Maybe if we get an influx of 20 million people to this metro areas such that the roads would be unbearable, with most of them working in downtown, the light rail would be viable. Right now the subsidy per rider is about $12 or so.
It is improving as it expands, but frankly we could have done better to buying everyone who must rely on these systems a personal auto, used, in good working condition. Days I had to ride the buses and light rail, btw, cost about five to six bucks (dividing the kind of pass required) and two or more hours (at one point, 4+): factoring my current driving time and the expenses associated, I pay about the same(!) I cover far more miles, am far more productive, have some life left over in the day, etc.: so again, mass transit can be just dumb in a place as unconcentrated as America--getting moreso as telecommunicating becomes more common.
On the other hand, if we hand-over roads to the government-private colluders/cartels (which I'm sure cross political boundaries and interests), mass transit might really become viable for being cheaper: the toll roads never seem to actually get handed over as promised, are excessively priced, and avoided by drivers like the plague: but again, while you might see that as a plus in the name of the "the environment", it would be devastating to our society.