Yeah, I wasn't particularly implying that it was adequate, but I think it is the most clear, complete and official statement on their attitude that I've seen.
From the Wholy-owned Canadian Subsidiary's Horse's Mouth:
It concerns me that Microsoft could be in the process of baiting people into using C# by claiming it is open and cross-platform, only to follow this up with patent claims against implementations that it does not agree with. Because the EU does not recognize software patents, one presumes that the ECMA does not consider this an issue. However, since software patents are accepted in the US, and currently (I believe) under review in Canada, this issue affects C# directly. Can you assure me that no patents required to reasonably implement a C# compiler will ever be enforced against C# implementations?
With regard to the C# standard governed by ECMA (now known as ECMA-334), Microsoft has committed in a letter sent to ECMA that it will "grant on a non-discriminatory basis, to any party requesting it, licenses on reasonable terms and conditions, for its patent(s) deemed necessary for implementing the ECMA standard." Microsoft has disclosed that it will not seek royalties for necessary patents to implement the ECMA C# standard (ECMA-334). Microsoft's license grant is to be applied on a world-wide basis and not just within Europe.
Not saying that I don't take part in the conversation...but I keep thinking to myself, "They aren't supposed to know this stuff, it isn't their job, it's OUR job."
The fallacy is that these extra peripherals cost extra. They don't, really. The price you pay is determined by, more than any other factor, the economy of mass producing exactly the same product for such a large market.
Sort of. The original poster was using a valid, intuitive sense of the word "waste". You're using a current-economic sense of the word.
Clearly, in some sense, the components are a "waste" if they go unused. The problem with your model is that it assumes everything is being costed correctly, most notably the environmental impact. It's quite possible that if the environmental costs were fully accounted-for, it would indeed be worth building several different models. (It's also quite possible that they wouldn't.)
It's not reasonable to discard an intuitively valid meaning of a word, in favour of one that has a first appearance of being rationally satisfying, but at a deeper look clearly has significant problems.
Ostensibly: On the surface: apparently, evidently, externally, ostensively, outwardly, seemingly, superficially. Idioms: on the face of it, to all appearances. See surface/depth.
My recollection of Miller-Rabin is that, for each iteration, it returns either "Composite" or "Probably prime."
With each iteration, you increase a power of 1/2 that your "unknown" number is actually prime. So if it makes it through 20 iterations, it's 1/2^20 that it's composite, and 1 - 1/2^20 that it's prime.
I'm not sure where the grandparent got his 10^-20 number.
Society is 100% ready to accept zero-privacy, expensive, addled DRM solutions. They will have no sympathy for anyone doing a 4-8 stretch for "downloading."
Maybe your society is, but mine isn't.
Canada has cut its own path on this issue, with the infamous levies. If what y'all down south are facing is the alternative, it makes me even more happy with the levy (which I'm already in favour of).
This is one of these tough issues - whose wishes do you want to respect, the grieving family, or the unknown wishes of the recently deceased?
Sure, that's a tough issue, but there's a simpler issue that comes first: knowing that this is the call you're making. The great-grandparent post made that call, simply assuming that the single callers with relatively weak info was honest and legit.
Isn't it strange how Canada seems to have such a different attitude to copyright enforcement to America, when Europe seems to want to follow in the footsteps of American law?
Canada has a long and colourful history of ignoring/resisting implicit and explicit American influence over our policy. We also have a long and colourful history of complying to requests, but certainly we stand up for our own way of doing things.
There's a more simple answer, though: this is a waste of money. On the balance of rights, it's a moderately complex question (though I still find it simple to answer -- the photo taker in your story was an ass, well within his [theoretically backed] rights). But on the balance of usefulness for money, it just isn't.
Oh really? What, exactly? I challenge you to produce any evidence that I was born in the United States or have even lived a majority of my life there.
Evidence: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2000/12/9/52131/2439 . Could be wrong. Is it?
Red light cameras are a cash cow (of questionable legality) in many US cities. They have plenty of motivation to rig traffic lights.
Sure. But the people who installed the traffic lights are not affiliated with those groups. It'd be pretty hard to keep that quiet, since every mid-grade traffic tech would soon know that the city was intentionally reversing the traffic light directions.
A lawsuit will publicly discourage other muicipalities from trying the same tactics. Asking nicely is not going to get a city like Sacramento to give up $4.3 million a year in revenues.
Do it anyway. By all means, if your city is being fraudulent, and you've exhausted both polite and impolite methods, sue. But suing (and a culture of lawsuits) has a high transaction cost for everybody, so everybody is served by resolving things without a lawsuit.
All that being said, assuming my evidence is correct, your belligerent attitude about that assumption indicates that you're not actually here to pay any attention to what other people say. I don't think all American's are lawsuit obsessive, but it's widely held (and I suspect true) that they are much quicker to resort to lawsuits that are unhealthy for the whole system than most (all?) countries in the world, which is what generated my original comment.
Nobody. Call it an assumption. A bit of digging reveals it to be a correct assumption, though.
Why is it "obviously" a mistake?
Because the people who did that have no motivation to do anything otherwise. It's conceivable to me that there's another reason, but "mistake" is the obvious one. Just like if you showed me something that looked like a potato, I'd say it's "obviously" a potato, even though it's conceivable that it's actually a plastic model of a potato.
Can you think of any reasons why a lawsuit might be more useful than simply asking, particularly when people in other US cities decide to pressure their local governments to fix their traffic lights?
I can think of no reason, under any circumstances, why a lawsuit should be pursued first, before you even ask for the change.
Document it, preferably with video and multiple witnesses. Sue the city. Offer to settle if they:
1. Reprogram all lights in the city to be as efficient for drivers as possible
2. Implement "sunshine" regulations to keep traffic and traffic light data as open to the public as possible
3. (insert other sensible stuff here)
what the HELL?! That's fucking INSANE.
Why the FUCK would you SUE before you fucking ASK them to correct what's OBVIOUSLY a fucking MISTAKE?
Jeezus CHRIST you yanks are sue-happy.
(No, I'm not a troll, look at my posting history.)
Try lining up your bike tires with one of the edges of the sensor when you pull up. Once I learned to do this I was able to reliably trip the sensor and get the light to change.
In Ottawa, Canada, the majority of lights have sensors, and the vast majority of those sensors are marked with three dots that indicate where bicycles should go to have the best chance of triggering the sensors. The sensors that have those dots are very reliably tripped.
Libel is generally (always? IANAL) a civil matter. Like the US, the standard of proof in civil matters is "on the balance of probabilities", not "beyond a reasonable doubt." Beyond a reasonable doubt is reserved for criminal matters.
Errr..I dunno about *your* MSM, but the Canadian news media generally refers to the plethora of voting styles as "punch cards, paper ballots,..., and dubious new touch screen voting machines" or something along those lines.
They/always/ imply that the new machines are suspect, and I think I've heard them go into some degree of detail.
We Canadians are an awful lot closer, and we don't have trouble giving the US the big ol' thumbs down when they want us in Iraq (admittedly we couldn't do too much militarily, but it would still be a major moral victory)...or on gay marriage, marijuana, and several NAFTA disputes.
It ain't the US's fault when other countries' democratically elected leaders kowtow to them, it's those countries' fault for electing those leaders.
Stop projecting.
Err..I don't meant to sound like quite as much as an ass that, but it's a line of reasoning that I'm tired of.
I'm still puzzled about why Page Info and the DOM Inspector won't actually reveal the image referenced in the.theimg style or allow it to be saved.
I haven't used the DOM inspector much, but since the image isn't in the DOM, it's not surprising that it doesn't show up there.
This amounts to Google (cleverly) exploiting corner-cases in browser inadequacy. These should be considered bugs and fixed, independent of whether or not they allow users to save Google Print's text. (Though I'm sure those fixes will be sped up now..)
Slashdot Mirror
Try using "+rpgle +setll" if it's doing the wrong thing.
-Rob
Err..Under banker's rounding, only "exact" halves are rounded to the even. 4.56 would go to 5, always.
Your "review" of what we do when we round is bollocks.
-Rob
uhh...
http://www.snopes.com/glurge/twoquest.htm
Google's founders still have majority voting rights.
-Rob
Yeah, I wasn't particularly implying that it was adequate, but I think it is the most clear, complete and official statement on their attitude that I've seen.
-Rob
Oops, forgot the source: http://uwstudent.org/article/2002/09/13/134115000
humph. that's the third independent source of that idea I've seen. I'd say that means it safe to say someone's doing it. :-)
-Rob
then get a fucking spine and say that.
it's not hard to be principled.
-Rob
Clearly, in some sense, the components are a "waste" if they go unused. The problem with your model is that it assumes everything is being costed correctly, most notably the environmental impact. It's quite possible that if the environmental costs were fully accounted-for, it would indeed be worth building several different models. (It's also quite possible that they wouldn't.)
It's not reasonable to discard an intuitively valid meaning of a word, in favour of one that has a first appearance of being rationally satisfying, but at a deeper look clearly has significant problems.
-Rob
I think you meant "supposedly" or "allegedly".
-Rob
My recollection of Miller-Rabin is that, for each iteration, it returns either "Composite" or "Probably prime."
With each iteration, you increase a power of 1/2 that your "unknown" number is actually prime. So if it makes it through 20 iterations, it's 1/2^20 that it's composite, and 1 - 1/2^20 that it's prime.
I'm not sure where the grandparent got his 10^-20 number.
Canada has cut its own path on this issue, with the infamous levies. If what y'all down south are facing is the alternative, it makes me even more happy with the levy (which I'm already in favour of).
-Rob
-Rob
There's a more simple answer, though: this is a waste of money. On the balance of rights, it's a moderately complex question (though I still find it simple to answer -- the photo taker in your story was an ass, well within his [theoretically backed] rights). But on the balance of usefulness for money, it just isn't.
-Rob
All that being said, assuming my evidence is correct, your belligerent attitude about that assumption indicates that you're not actually here to pay any attention to what other people say. I don't think all American's are lawsuit obsessive, but it's widely held (and I suspect true) that they are much quicker to resort to lawsuits that are unhealthy for the whole system than most (all?) countries in the world, which is what generated my original comment.
-Rob
-Rob, e'er so slightly more civil.
Why the FUCK would you SUE before you fucking ASK them to correct what's OBVIOUSLY a fucking MISTAKE?
Jeezus CHRIST you yanks are sue-happy.
(No, I'm not a troll, look at my posting history.)
-Rob
-Rob
Uhh...
Libel is generally (always? IANAL) a civil matter. Like the US, the standard of proof in civil matters is "on the balance of probabilities", not "beyond a reasonable doubt." Beyond a reasonable doubt is reserved for criminal matters.
-Rob
Errr..I dunno about *your* MSM, but the Canadian news media generally refers to the plethora of voting styles as "punch cards, paper ballots, ..., and dubious new touch screen voting machines" or something along those lines.
/always/ imply that the new machines are suspect, and I think I've heard them go into some degree of detail.
They
Why can'tcha run your own country?
We Canadians are an awful lot closer, and we don't have trouble giving the US the big ol' thumbs down when they want us in Iraq (admittedly we couldn't do too much militarily, but it would still be a major moral victory)...or on gay marriage, marijuana, and several NAFTA disputes.
It ain't the US's fault when other countries' democratically elected leaders kowtow to them, it's those countries' fault for electing those leaders.
Stop projecting.
Err..I don't meant to sound like quite as much as an ass that, but it's a line of reasoning that I'm tired of.
-Rob
While it's probably in-principal possible to make a guess about nationality based on IMEI, that's about all you've got.
This amounts to Google (cleverly) exploiting corner-cases in browser inadequacy. These should be considered bugs and fixed, independent of whether or not they allow users to save Google Print's text. (Though I'm sure those fixes will be sped up now..)
-Rob