It won't stay gone. The dual screen thing is very good idea.
Nor is it unique to Courier; IIRC, there's been at least a few dual-screen (one e-Ink, one LCD touch) working prototype tablets shown over the last year.
Microsoft found themselves behind the game, and Courier seems to have been that most venerable of MS strategies -- an effort to give consumers reasons to delay buying decisions long enough to give Microsoft some time to catch up with the companies that are way out ahead in a new market that Microsoft wasn't ready to leverage its existing market dominance in other areas to dominate.
Rather than looking at calories and sodium, they should be looking at carbohydrates. Carbohydrates are the root cause of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, and other chronic diseases.
Not really. Some of those are affected independently by carbohydrates (or certain kinds of carbohydrates), others are more affected by fat, some are particularly affected by sodium, and obesity in particular is more affected simply by calorie surplus.
Its purely symbolic, because you cant build in unincorporated land, it becomes automatically incorporated.
Uh, wrong.
Unincorporated land in a California county only becomes incorporated when a new city is created including the land at issue, or when land at issue is annexed to a city; either of which requires action by the county's Local Agency Formation Commission, and neither of which is a prerequisite for building on the land.
Re:It should read 'stoopid people hath spoken'
on
Terry Childs Found Guilty
·
· Score: 2, Informative
You can kill people and get less than five years in jail.
Sure, and you can do what Childs did and get less than 5 years in jail; except for homicides which aren't criminal in the first place, you probably won't find a homicide offense that has less than a 5 year maximum sentence, though, and comparing the maximum sentence available for the crime Childs was convicted of to the minimum sentence actually given out for a particular instance of a different crime is pretty meaningless.
It amazes me that he ever made any sort of a living as a "comedian", given that his entire "funny" schtick (yes, I read his books... *shudder*) is calling his political opponents foul-mouthed names.
Franken's comedy is mostly in TV, both as a writer and performer. Contrary to TFS, Franken worked largely as a political commentator (both as a writer and a talk-radio host) from at least 2003, and less as a comedian.
Further, if you'd actually read his books, you would know that, even for the political books, that's not an accurate description of their content, though with a suitably loose definition of "foul-mouthed", it might accurately describe their titles.
Competing on the world stage isn't cheap. I do find it surprising that MS lost $713 on its "Online Services Division", but keep in mind not all of that is search/anti-Google. They are rolling out their "Office LIve" stuff as well as pushing their version of the "cloud".
How is that Microsoft's alternatives to Google Docs and Google AppEngine aren't "anti-Google"?
RSS/Atom are not push. Your RSS reader just regularly checks the feed for updates.
RSS/Atom are content formats, and can be used for polling (not really "push", but what mostly passes for it) updates, or in a system that does real push (e.g., Google's PubSubHubbub push protocol, which strictly sspeaking isn't limited to Atom, but only has defined semantics for Atom.)
Google's idea was great, but it doesn't work in the current carrier-controlled (and I don't mean this in a conspiracy-theorist way) market.
Android exists, it seems to me, largely to prevent any one non-Google proprietary smartphone platform from dominating, and the controller of that platform getting the ability to act as a gatekeeper and tolltaker for services to the whole smartphone market, since that happening in any key network-enabled computing market (smartphone, netbook, tablet, mainstream desktop/laptop) is a potential threat to Google's basic business model (on the netbook and mainstream desktop/laptop, the Microsoft OS and browser dominance is a problem for Google now, but as the platform isn't as locked down as smartphones, its a problem that Google has been able to work around so far, and its a problem that Google is working to undermine particularly at the browser level--both through Chrome and its support for Mozilla.)
Google's idea was great, but it doesn't work in the current carrier-controlled (and I don't mean this in a conspiracy-theorist way) market.
I don't think the success or failure of the effort depends really depends on how many Nexus One phones get sold. Google isn't trying to compete with Apple as a phone manufacturer, they are trying to prevent any one company -- whether its Apple, RIM, or anyone else -- completely dominating the smartphone market, because that's what keeps open, web-based services (like Google's) important for the smartphone platform, whereas if any single proprietary system dominated smartphones, that system's owner would be able to serve as a gatekeeper to services available on the platform, and that is a threat to Google's fundamental business model.
A number of Google offerings (notably, Android, Chrome browser, Chrome OS) aren't intended to dominate markets, they are intended to disrupt and prevent market dominance of closed platforms in their respective market. The Nexus One exists as part of that strategy for Android, and as long as it is drawing attention and serving as a tool to promote Android (even if most of the actual sales end up going to other Android phones), its working.
There is a huge difference on working on something that could be used to develop/deliver weapons, and the weapons themselves.
This is, if true at all, certainly far less true than that there is a big difference between working on weapons and using them.
Almost all complex weapons engineering is going to use CVS/Subversion/Git, or some other code management system, but the authors of CVS/Subversion/Git, aren't sitting down and thinking "how can I more effectively kill people?"
Neither are many people engineering advanced weapon systems, since much work on weapon systems isn't about more effectively killing people, but more effectively avoiding killing the wrong people, and/or more effectively destroying things that are not people (destruction of which may, or may not, incidentally also kill people.)
They probably aren't even close to thinking "if we can make code check-in/out more efficient, then it will really help out the people designing Death Robots."
And the people designing "death robots" probably aren't thinking "lots and lots of people--and in particular people that shouldn't be--might get killed if we do a good job at this and someone chooses to use it for evil (and just poorly considered attempts at good.)" But the argument presented upthread is that they should be thinking that and, moreover, that that concern should often be enough to get them not to work on death robots in the first place.
But if the weapon designers ought to be thinking of malicious or negligent weapon users, shouldn't the tool designers also be thinking about the malicious or negligent tool users, including those that happen to maliciously ("I'm making death robots because I want them used for mayhem") or negligently ("I'm making death robots because I need the paycheck, and I'll let the end-user worry about how they get used") using the tools in weapon manufacture?
The actual moral decision shouldn't be "I only want my weapons used for righteous causes", it should be "how many intentional deaths from my creation can I live with?".
Granting, for the sake of argument, that that isthe one, true, correct moral framework to use to evaluate whether one's work is okay, what justification is there to limiting that consideration to work in weapons design and manufacturing?
After all, that's not the only work where the product is in some way instrumental in intentional killing.
There are lots of high tech workers that read slashdot. I'm one of them. I decided, while at university, that I was not going to spend my life building weapons. Working on weapons certainly was an opportunity that presented itself when I was getting my degree in the late 80s. I do not want to create weapons because I would have no direct control over whether those weapons were limited to truly righteous causes.
If you work on software, and don't personally control the licensing to assure who uses it, you risk that it will be used in (or to coordinate the use of, or to support the development of, or in some other way related to) weapons, where you will have no control over whether the weapons are used in "truly righteous causes".
Unlikely, I doubt that the law is constitutional as currently written. It's not up to the state to regulate interstate commerce, even if it does directly impact the residents.
Except where Congress has passed a law under its Commerce Clause powers which expressly preempts state regulation, acts which affect both intrastate and interstate commerce are generally subject to both state and federal regulation, not just federal regulation.
Meaning that companies that aren't incorporated in MA and don't have a physical presence there can't be made to answer to this law as the Federal government is responsible for interstate commerce.
Parties that don't have any nexus with Massachussetts may be difficult to enforce this law against for jurisdictional reasons, but that's a different question than whether the law is Constitutional.
It's interesting that people complain how Africa is a third world country and how we should help them
Usually, I tune out any argument that starts out with a claim about what kind of country Africa is (third world or not), since any claim of that form is a pretty good indicator that the argument is coming from someone who doesn't have the first clue what they are talking about.
I'd be surprised if security theater accounts form more than 0.5% of the decrease in domestic air travel. People just don't care.
Since it has substantially increased door-to-door travel times when their is commercial air travel anywhere in the process, and since travel time is the big selling point of air travel over other forms of travel, I suspect its a much bigger factor than that, particular for shorter flights.
Considering the main point of the no-fly list is to prevent suicide bombings,
No, the main point of the no fly list is: (1) to present the appearance of "doing something" about terrorism without any accountability for actually doing anything (i.e., security theater), and (2) to get people used to tolerating arbitrary and unaccountable deprivations of liberty without due process.
Its probably more successful at the latter than the former, as most people don't seem to be fooled into thinking it actually provides substantial security, but no one seems to care enough to actually demand that it either be ended or made accountable.
Yes, which is why the people that enforce such criteria (e.g., in broadcast networks) are often known as "censors".
And, whether or not it is legal or moral, the fact that there is a single institutional censor with control of the native apps available for a platform is, for a certain segment of the market, an important consideration.
If an ice cube can burn some one, then the possibility exists.
An ice cube can't burn someone. An ice cube could conceivably freeze someone, and the tissue damage resulting from freezing has some effects which are similar to the tissue damage that results from burning (others are radically different.)
Forget that, the simple matter that this is not possible should prevent it.
Possibility is a question of fact. Dismissing a case before trial is generally allowed only if the filing is deficient as a matter of law.
And, as much as we might believe that in this particular case the claimed facts are "obviously impossible", do we really want to live in a system where judges can dismiss cases before trial based on their presumptions, prior to any evidence being presented, about the facts in dispute?
Funny thing about legal documents: It doesn't matter if you read them, understand them, whatever. Only that you sign them.
It's a very good idea for you to act as if this is the case when considering whether or not to sign something, but its not actually true in many cases.
The Judge that let this go to trial should be out of a job. Why waste the time of a jury and tax-dollars on such ridiculous claims?
Because judges aren't generally empowered to prevent a case from going to trial because they don't believe the facts alleged. A judge can prevent a case from going to trial because the facts alleged, if viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, don't support a legal cause of action.
Isn't Opera Mini for resource starved mobile devices that have a hard time rendering and dealing with semi-complex web pages on the device directly?
Not exclusively. While it is for that (i.e., the case of "resource starved" for which the "resource" at issue is processing power), it is also for the another case of "resource starved", that is, the case where the "resource" at issue is bandwidth. Its much faster than Safari on most pages I've tried it on, which makes a big difference even when you don't have a fast connection (and by fast, I mean faster than 3G usually is.)
There were a ton of tablet prototypes shown at CES this year, months before the iPad was announced. Everyone and their mother independently came to the conclusion that tablets were going to be the next big thing after the success of netbooks.
Actually, I think everyone and their mother came to the conclusion that tablets were going to be the next big thing, given the both the success of netbooks and e-book readers, with tablets being sold as "good enough" at both the kind of light computing that netbooks are largely used for and at e-book reading, with typical entry prices competitive with high-end netbooks or mid-range e-readers (or, perhaps more relevantly, with the price of a cheap netbook plus a cheap e-reader.)
[No offline capabilities....] I thought off-line storage was a big part of HTML5?
It is. That's why this preview version doesn't have offline capability. Google Docs currently uses Google's proprietary Gears system for offline storage. The new version will replace that with functionality based on (draft) standard HTML5 Local Storage. The new HTML5-based offline capability isn't complete yet, so the preview version of the new interface doesn't have offline capability.
Or I'm riding in a car doing the same through the backwoods where the cell towers don't go. Until I can, Google Docs will not be replacing Office or iWork as my everyday office tools.
The non-preview version of Google Docs has had offline capability for quite some time, based on Google Gears.
When the new version of Docs replaces the old version, rather than being available as a preview to show of the new interface and collaboration features, it will have offline capability, based on HTML5 Local Storage.
Slashdot Mirror
Nor is it unique to Courier; IIRC, there's been at least a few dual-screen (one e-Ink, one LCD touch) working prototype tablets shown over the last year.
Microsoft found themselves behind the game, and Courier seems to have been that most venerable of MS strategies -- an effort to give consumers reasons to delay buying decisions long enough to give Microsoft some time to catch up with the companies that are way out ahead in a new market that Microsoft wasn't ready to leverage its existing market dominance in other areas to dominate.
Not really. Some of those are affected independently by carbohydrates (or certain kinds of carbohydrates), others are more affected by fat, some are particularly affected by sodium, and obesity in particular is more affected simply by calorie surplus.
Uh, wrong.
Unincorporated land in a California county only becomes incorporated when a new city is created including the land at issue, or when land at issue is annexed to a city; either of which requires action by the county's Local Agency Formation Commission, and neither of which is a prerequisite for building on the land.
Sure, and you can do what Childs did and get less than 5 years in jail; except for homicides which aren't criminal in the first place, you probably won't find a homicide offense that has less than a 5 year maximum sentence, though, and comparing the maximum sentence available for the crime Childs was convicted of to the minimum sentence actually given out for a particular instance of a different crime is pretty meaningless.
Franken's comedy is mostly in TV, both as a writer and performer. Contrary to TFS, Franken worked largely as a political commentator (both as a writer and a talk-radio host) from at least 2003, and less as a comedian.
Further, if you'd actually read his books, you would know that, even for the political books, that's not an accurate description of their content, though with a suitably loose definition of "foul-mouthed", it might accurately describe their titles.
How is that Microsoft's alternatives to Google Docs and Google AppEngine aren't "anti-Google"?
RSS/Atom are content formats, and can be used for polling (not really "push", but what mostly passes for it) updates, or in a system that does real push (e.g., Google's PubSubHubbub push protocol, which strictly sspeaking isn't limited to Atom, but only has defined semantics for Atom.)
Android exists, it seems to me, largely to prevent any one non-Google proprietary smartphone platform from dominating, and the controller of that platform getting the ability to act as a gatekeeper and tolltaker for services to the whole smartphone market, since that happening in any key network-enabled computing market (smartphone, netbook, tablet, mainstream desktop/laptop) is a potential threat to Google's basic business model (on the netbook and mainstream desktop/laptop, the Microsoft OS and browser dominance is a problem for Google now, but as the platform isn't as locked down as smartphones, its a problem that Google has been able to work around so far, and its a problem that Google is working to undermine particularly at the browser level--both through Chrome and its support for Mozilla.)
The Incredible didn't exist at the time that Google puts its name on the Nexus One, so it wasn't really an option.
I don't think the success or failure of the effort depends really depends on how many Nexus One phones get sold. Google isn't trying to compete with Apple as a phone manufacturer, they are trying to prevent any one company -- whether its Apple, RIM, or anyone else -- completely dominating the smartphone market, because that's what keeps open, web-based services (like Google's) important for the smartphone platform, whereas if any single proprietary system dominated smartphones, that system's owner would be able to serve as a gatekeeper to services available on the platform, and that is a threat to Google's fundamental business model.
A number of Google offerings (notably, Android, Chrome browser, Chrome OS) aren't intended to dominate markets, they are intended to disrupt and prevent market dominance of closed platforms in their respective market. The Nexus One exists as part of that strategy for Android, and as long as it is drawing attention and serving as a tool to promote Android (even if most of the actual sales end up going to other Android phones), its working.
This is, if true at all, certainly far less true than that there is a big difference between working on weapons and using them.
Neither are many people engineering advanced weapon systems, since much work on weapon systems isn't about more effectively killing people, but more effectively avoiding killing the wrong people, and/or more effectively destroying things that are not people (destruction of which may, or may not, incidentally also kill people.)
And the people designing "death robots" probably aren't thinking "lots and lots of people--and in particular people that shouldn't be--might get killed if we do a good job at this and someone chooses to use it for evil (and just poorly considered attempts at good.)" But the argument presented upthread is that they should be thinking that and, moreover, that that concern should often be enough to get them not to work on death robots in the first place.
But if the weapon designers ought to be thinking of malicious or negligent weapon users, shouldn't the tool designers also be thinking about the malicious or negligent tool users, including those that happen to maliciously ("I'm making death robots because I want them used for mayhem") or negligently ("I'm making death robots because I need the paycheck, and I'll let the end-user worry about how they get used") using the tools in weapon manufacture?
Granting, for the sake of argument, that that is the one, true, correct moral framework to use to evaluate whether one's work is okay, what justification is there to limiting that consideration to work in weapons design and manufacturing?
After all, that's not the only work where the product is in some way instrumental in intentional killing.
If you work on software, and don't personally control the licensing to assure who uses it, you risk that it will be used in (or to coordinate the use of, or to support the development of, or in some other way related to) weapons, where you will have no control over whether the weapons are used in "truly righteous causes".
Open source databases can encrypt data (or, alternatively, store their data on devices encrypted at a lower level.)
Except where Congress has passed a law under its Commerce Clause powers which expressly preempts state regulation, acts which affect both intrastate and interstate commerce are generally subject to both state and federal regulation, not just federal regulation.
Parties that don't have any nexus with Massachussetts may be difficult to enforce this law against for jurisdictional reasons, but that's a different question than whether the law is Constitutional.
Usually, I tune out any argument that starts out with a claim about what kind of country Africa is (third world or not), since any claim of that form is a pretty good indicator that the argument is coming from someone who doesn't have the first clue what they are talking about.
Since it has substantially increased door-to-door travel times when their is commercial air travel anywhere in the process, and since travel time is the big selling point of air travel over other forms of travel, I suspect its a much bigger factor than that, particular for shorter flights.
No, the main point of the no fly list is:
(1) to present the appearance of "doing something" about terrorism without any accountability for actually doing anything (i.e., security theater), and
(2) to get people used to tolerating arbitrary and unaccountable deprivations of liberty without due process.
Its probably more successful at the latter than the former, as most people don't seem to be fooled into thinking it actually provides substantial security, but no one seems to care enough to actually demand that it either be ended or made accountable.
Yes, which is why the people that enforce such criteria (e.g., in broadcast networks) are often known as "censors".
And, whether or not it is legal or moral, the fact that there is a single institutional censor with control of the native apps available for a platform is, for a certain segment of the market, an important consideration.
An ice cube can't burn someone. An ice cube could conceivably freeze someone, and the tissue damage resulting from freezing has some effects which are similar to the tissue damage that results from burning (others are radically different.)
Possibility is a question of fact. Dismissing a case before trial is generally allowed only if the filing is deficient as a matter of law.
And, as much as we might believe that in this particular case the claimed facts are "obviously impossible", do we really want to live in a system where judges can dismiss cases before trial based on their presumptions, prior to any evidence being presented, about the facts in dispute?
It's a very good idea for you to act as if this is the case when considering whether or not to sign something, but its not actually true in many cases.
Because judges aren't generally empowered to prevent a case from going to trial because they don't believe the facts alleged. A judge can prevent a case from going to trial because the facts alleged, if viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, don't support a legal cause of action.
Not exclusively. While it is for that (i.e., the case of "resource starved" for which the "resource" at issue is processing power), it is also for the another case of "resource starved", that is, the case where the "resource" at issue is bandwidth. Its much faster than Safari on most pages I've tried it on, which makes a big difference even when you don't have a fast connection (and by fast, I mean faster than 3G usually is.)
Actually, I think everyone and their mother came to the conclusion that tablets were going to be the next big thing, given the both the success of netbooks and e-book readers, with tablets being sold as "good enough" at both the kind of light computing that netbooks are largely used for and at e-book reading, with typical entry prices competitive with high-end netbooks or mid-range e-readers (or, perhaps more relevantly, with the price of a cheap netbook plus a cheap e-reader.)
[No offline capabilities....] I thought off-line storage was a big part of HTML5?
It is. That's why this preview version doesn't have offline capability. Google Docs currently uses Google's proprietary Gears system for offline storage. The new version will replace that with functionality based on (draft) standard HTML5 Local Storage. The new HTML5-based offline capability isn't complete yet, so the preview version of the new interface doesn't have offline capability.
Or I'm riding in a car doing the same through the backwoods where the cell towers don't go. Until I can, Google Docs will not be replacing Office or iWork as my everyday office tools.
The non-preview version of Google Docs has had offline capability for quite some time, based on Google Gears.
When the new version of Docs replaces the old version, rather than being available as a preview to show of the new interface and collaboration features, it will have offline capability, based on HTML5 Local Storage.