If you listen to his speeches given while governor of texas, he sounds like a college educated guy from yale. If you listen to him now, either he had a stroke, or he's putting on a show.... like a politician that managed to get elected twice?
I'm a bit of a noob, but if you're clipping on a 44.1 kHz sampled signal, wouldn't the clip be at 22kHz? That's where the sampling theorem states you can't get any more nonaliased signal.
If by failure you mean "still dominates the desktop market at about 90%"
Dude, just a point, but you don't only look at current data to understand the curve, you also look at the second and third derivatives etc.
That said, I have a feeling MS will adapt somehow. Vista failed in the marketplace, but I'm sure some heads will roll and they'll figure out a new strategy.
OTOH, Bill Gates is leaving. Who knows what'll happen.
A bit off topic, but when I saw Iron Man, when the CEO guy was saying something like "Now that I have this power I'm going to kill you!" I heard "Now that I have this power I'm going to fucking kill Google."
Just to clarify a point about the stem cells: It isn't that they can't physically isolate the stem cells, it's that they cease to be stem cells once you take them out of their niche. Science as of today does not know how to replicate the niche, thus requiring some of the surrounding tissue to be included with the sample so that the cells remain potent.
I'll admit that some people may fit that description, but it would be blind not to notice that some of them are cutting heads off on live TV. I'm pretty sure George Washington didn't slaughter civilians at whim.
I'll admit that these tactics may be necessary to use when the enemy is much stronger, but honestly, if that was what the "freedom fighters" where doing when they were on the down low, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to be ruled by them when they won.
You have a point. I imagine that most of the overhead of accessing a static page is in setting up the TCP connection rather than the data size when you're under a few hundred kilobytes.
Well the point is that the tracker can handle requests much more efficiently than a full on fileserver. While that doesn't give you an unlimited amount, its still waaaay better than a traditional server when you're getting hit hard.
I have a feeling that the way the studies were conducted was to measure the incidence of skin cancer in groups that applied skin cancer and ones that didn't. Even if the lotion was carcinogenic, it obviously is less carcinogenic than UV radiation or studies wouldn't show improvement.
What is possible is that it might cause some subtypes to become more prevalent than UV radiation in proportion to their own carcinogenicity levels.
Nonetheless, unless someone had specific risk factors that would increase this incidence to a level above solar radiation, they should probably just use the stuff if they are going to the beach. If they had risk factors that would increase the incidence to lower than solar radiation and significantly higher than normal, they should avoid using it unless they are going to the beach.
Give me a break man, I was playing starcraft TODAY. When you get products that good that you're playing them TEN years later and there's an active user base it's worth the wait. I'm HAPPY they take the time they do painful as it is.
You can't "pirate" OSS software (well, except in the case when your OSS is BSD licensed and someone uses it for a closed source project, IMHO).
Ah sorry for the confusion, I was referring to the car.
Why? What if I have access to a machine shop? And I don't have to buy original parts.
You do have a point there, but if you want a new car, or even new parts, there is a non trivial expense to make it work - quite unlike OSS software.
I may have jumped too many steps ahead, but I still see this as connected to the copyright in general debate. BSD allows closed source to use it. A major reason for closed source is so that it can't be trivially exploited without paying dues to the producer. Therefore the GPL vs BSD is connected to copyright since GPL precludes this.
I replied to myself before with a solution for this limited case. Personally, I think that using GPL for innovative projects on the whole slows the economy down. It's great for reproducing old work and essentially moving it into the public domain and pressuring companies to innovate. Not so good for allowing people to build innovations on top of it. GPL code should eventually pass into the public domain as well as closed source code.
The essential problem with copyrights now is their length. I think a good idea for licenses might be to put self limiting clauses in them so that they don't apply after a certain number of years or transition to a looser license (such as BSD or LGPL). That way GPL code eventually passes into the common stack that everyone can build off of while giving FLOSS the head start it needs to keep people producing within the domain. Since software moves fast, probably a period of 5 years or so would be appropriate.
I'm not a lawyer, but it would probably work to append a line to a GPL that says something like:
"Beginning on MONTH DAY, YEAR, the terms of this license are rendered null and completely superseded by YOUR_CHOICE_OF_LICENSE."
So long as you included the aforementioned license along with the GPL.
As for symmetry with closed source, well, you can only hope they do something similar like say that the source will become available under some license after a certain amount of time. If both sides limited their time out of the public domain, then we would have less of a problem. Almost assuredly pie in the sky.
Actually, it occurs to me, that as it is the resolution to copyright debate, a cool idea might be to GPL for a set period of time, but then it reverts to BSD or LGPL. That way GPL software has it's running start without harming business by making them reinvent the wheel.
Actually this analogy fails completely because (one of the big) reason(s) people close source is because it's trivial to pirate it if its OSS. If I'm a car manufacturer, then it doesn't really matter if you know how it works because you can't build your own and you're still dependent on me. This is RIAA flamewars all over again.
What might work in certain limited cases is a license clause that says that if the company goes out of business or ceases to support your product, it will be open sourced to the people that already bought it.
Yea... After I posted that I thought about what would be the ideal way of going about doing that.... that's when I realized that what I was thinking of was already enshrined in the amendment process. Oh well, I'm glad someone smart thought of it first xD
Dude, for the vast majority of your points I agree with you. The reason we call them rights is because we decided that we can't do without them, and they provide logical protections to the people. I didn't mean that the government should be able to eliminate rights at whim, only that should it become clear that something that we thought was good, actually is more bad than good we should be able to change it.
On the other hand, I'm fairly convinced that our current set of rights (as stated in the bill of rights) are fundamentally important and either the or close to the minimal feasible set to work with. I'm not saying do away with these - because its obvious from history that they do more good than bad. I'm not really sure where I'm going with this, because I don't trust the government any more than you do.
Actually, I would vote for taking the purely logical route if we could be certain enough of the numbers. The reason we declare things rights is because we are certain that they have some benefit that is so useful that it can't be done without. If we accidentally made a bad choice, we should correct it. Please note that I'm being completely abstract and not commenting on any specific topic.
That may be true, but heroin is still not a fun drug because it causes you to down regulate your endorphine receptors, which causes you to be in constant pain during the withdrawl period IIRC. It's really only appropriate for end of life situations when you don't care about its negative effects.
Dude, NCLB was enacted like, 7 or 8 years ago. There is no way that it is a CAUSE of the society today - the first people who were exposed to it are at best just getting out of their internships in the real world. It's a symptom - you've got cause and effect backwards.
Hold on here. Didn't Verizon just surrender their protection under the safe harbor provisions by taking responsibility for what they serve? Does that only apply to copyright? To websites?
Slashdot Mirror
If you listen to his speeches given while governor of texas, he sounds like a college educated guy from yale. If you listen to him now, either he had a stroke, or he's putting on a show.... like a politician that managed to get elected twice?
I'm a bit of a noob, but if you're clipping on a 44.1 kHz sampled signal, wouldn't the clip be at 22kHz? That's where the sampling theorem states you can't get any more nonaliased signal.
I don't think that that was a statement representative of America. I think most would call the cops or beat them up.
If by failure you mean "still dominates the desktop market at about 90%"
Dude, just a point, but you don't only look at current data to understand the curve, you also look at the second and third derivatives etc.
That said, I have a feeling MS will adapt somehow. Vista failed in the marketplace, but I'm sure some heads will roll and they'll figure out a new strategy.
OTOH, Bill Gates is leaving. Who knows what'll happen.
They keep releasing videos recently. Maybe they release in 2012? The microsoft thing is just a sign of things to come.
A bit off topic, but when I saw Iron Man, when the CEO guy was saying something like "Now that I have this power I'm going to kill you!" I heard "Now that I have this power I'm going to fucking kill Google."
Just to clarify a point about the stem cells: It isn't that they can't physically isolate the stem cells, it's that they cease to be stem cells once you take them out of their niche. Science as of today does not know how to replicate the niche, thus requiring some of the surrounding tissue to be included with the sample so that the cells remain potent.
I'll admit that some people may fit that description, but it would be blind not to notice that some of them are cutting heads off on live TV. I'm pretty sure George Washington didn't slaughter civilians at whim.
I'll admit that these tactics may be necessary to use when the enemy is much stronger, but honestly, if that was what the "freedom fighters" where doing when they were on the down low, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to be ruled by them when they won.
You have a point. I imagine that most of the overhead of accessing a static page is in setting up the TCP connection rather than the data size when you're under a few hundred kilobytes.
Well the point is that the tracker can handle requests much more efficiently than a full on fileserver. While that doesn't give you an unlimited amount, its still waaaay better than a traditional server when you're getting hit hard.
I have a feeling that the way the studies were conducted was to measure the incidence of skin cancer in groups that applied skin cancer and ones that didn't. Even if the lotion was carcinogenic, it obviously is less carcinogenic than UV radiation or studies wouldn't show improvement.
What is possible is that it might cause some subtypes to become more prevalent than UV radiation in proportion to their own carcinogenicity levels.
Nonetheless, unless someone had specific risk factors that would increase this incidence to a level above solar radiation, they should probably just use the stuff if they are going to the beach. If they had risk factors that would increase the incidence to lower than solar radiation and significantly higher than normal, they should avoid using it unless they are going to the beach.
Well you hammered me into the ground. Props.
Give me a break man, I was playing starcraft TODAY. When you get products that good that you're playing them TEN years later and there's an active user base it's worth the wait. I'm HAPPY they take the time they do painful as it is.
You can't "pirate" OSS software (well, except in the case when your OSS is BSD licensed and someone uses it for a closed source project, IMHO).
Ah sorry for the confusion, I was referring to the car.
Why? What if I have access to a machine shop? And I don't have to buy original parts.
You do have a point there, but if you want a new car, or even new parts, there is a non trivial expense to make it work - quite unlike OSS software.
I may have jumped too many steps ahead, but I still see this as connected to the copyright in general debate. BSD allows closed source to use it. A major reason for closed source is so that it can't be trivially exploited without paying dues to the producer. Therefore the GPL vs BSD is connected to copyright since GPL precludes this.
I replied to myself before with a solution for this limited case. Personally, I think that using GPL for innovative projects on the whole slows the economy down. It's great for reproducing old work and essentially moving it into the public domain and pressuring companies to innovate. Not so good for allowing people to build innovations on top of it. GPL code should eventually pass into the public domain as well as closed source code.
The essential problem with copyrights now is their length. I think a good idea for licenses might be to put self limiting clauses in them so that they don't apply after a certain number of years or transition to a looser license (such as BSD or LGPL). That way GPL code eventually passes into the common stack that everyone can build off of while giving FLOSS the head start it needs to keep people producing within the domain. Since software moves fast, probably a period of 5 years or so would be appropriate.
I'm not a lawyer, but it would probably work to append a line to a GPL that says something like:
"Beginning on MONTH DAY, YEAR, the terms of this license are rendered null
and completely superseded by YOUR_CHOICE_OF_LICENSE."
So long as you included the aforementioned license along with the GPL.
As for symmetry with closed source, well, you can only hope they do something similar like say that the source will become available under some license after a certain amount of time. If both sides limited their time out of the public domain, then we would have less of a problem. Almost assuredly pie in the sky.
Actually, it occurs to me, that as it is the resolution to copyright debate, a cool idea might be to GPL for a set period of time, but then it reverts to BSD or LGPL. That way GPL software has it's running start without harming business by making them reinvent the wheel.
Actually this analogy fails completely because (one of the big) reason(s) people close source is because it's trivial to pirate it if its OSS. If I'm a car manufacturer, then it doesn't really matter if you know how it works because you can't build your own and you're still dependent on me. This is RIAA flamewars all over again.
What might work in certain limited cases is a license clause that says that if the company goes out of business or ceases to support your product, it will be open sourced to the people that already bought it.
But with less mobility
Yea... After I posted that I thought about what would be the ideal way of going about doing that.... that's when I realized that what I was thinking of was already enshrined in the amendment process. Oh well, I'm glad someone smart thought of it first xD
Dude, for the vast majority of your points I agree with you. The reason we call them rights is because we decided that we can't do without them, and they provide logical protections to the people. I didn't mean that the government should be able to eliminate rights at whim, only that should it become clear that something that we thought was good, actually is more bad than good we should be able to change it.
On the other hand, I'm fairly convinced that our current set of rights (as stated in the bill of rights) are fundamentally important and either the or close to the minimal feasible set to work with. I'm not saying do away with these - because its obvious from history that they do more good than bad. I'm not really sure where I'm going with this, because I don't trust the government any more than you do.
Actually, I would vote for taking the purely logical route if we could be certain enough of the numbers. The reason we declare things rights is because we are certain that they have some benefit that is so useful that it can't be done without. If we accidentally made a bad choice, we should correct it. Please note that I'm being completely abstract and not commenting on any specific topic.
That may be true, but heroin is still not a fun drug because it causes you to down regulate your endorphine receptors, which causes you to be in constant pain during the withdrawl period IIRC. It's really only appropriate for end of life situations when you don't care about its negative effects.
Dude, NCLB was enacted like, 7 or 8 years ago. There is no way that it is a CAUSE of the society today - the first people who were exposed to it are at best just getting out of their internships in the real world. It's a symptom - you've got cause and effect backwards.
Ugh. Hand smoke. Don't breathe that.
Ah I read a bit more, I overreacted. Please ignore ^_^
Hold on here. Didn't Verizon just surrender their protection under the safe harbor provisions by taking responsibility for what they serve? Does that only apply to copyright? To websites?
Can someone go class action on their asses?