Just for starters, why isn't "Open in background tab" the default when clicking a link? Chances are you didn't mean to watch a blank fucking screen while it's loading.
Why don't new tabs get focus when you click a link? Chances are you didn't want to have to move the mouse to the tab bar and click again to see the page that you just told the browser you want to see.
There isn't always a single correct answer, is there?
Verizon was doing the buy-one-get-one-free deals. Were the manufacturers giving Verizon any kind of discounts, or is Verizon sucking up the loss in exchange for the service contract? HTC and Motorola may be getting as much per phone as Apple does, they just don't force the carriers to sell the phone at some "suggested" retail price.
Well, it's relevant in that if it turns out nobody is making any money off Android devices, a lot of companies will simply stop making Android devices, and switch to something they can make money from.
The manufacturers are probably making just as much money from sales of Android devices as they would from Windows Mobile or Symbian devices. A hardware sale is a hardware sale, regardless of what OS the hardware runs. The interesting question is if Google is turning a profit from all the resources they've invested.
The internet was create by ADULTS for ADULTS. The better solution is to create a ".kids" domain that has the content restriction that everything on it be "kid friendly." That would allow the same ease of use to configure content blockers for children - only allow the ".kids" domain.
So your definition of "for-profit company" excludes non-publicly-traded organizations, such as sole proprietorships and private partnerships?
Sorry, that probably should have read "are the answers to both questions no?" For a sole proprietorship, that person would effectively be the CEO. I certainly didn't intend to limit my definition to publicly traded companies that name the person-in-charge "CEO". For private companies, you can substitute "owners" or "investors" for "shareholders".
Here I was thinking that "for-profit company" meant any company not formally classified as a non-profit organization.
Nope, there's also the "not-for-profit" classification. I may be wrong on this, but "non-profit" is used for organizations that are basically charities. Food banks, homeless shelters, cancer research organizations, etc. would be non-profit. "Not-for-profit" is for organizations that clearly aren't charities, but that don't have owners, executives, or shareholders that get extra money at the end of the year. Places like research labs that are spin-offs of universities (MIT has a few around Boston) are often not-for-profits. The USPS would probably be considered such a not-for-profit.
The USPS is a for-profit company backed by the federal government.
Does the USPS have shareholders? Is there a CEO and a board of directors who get bonuses at the end of the year based on how many stamps the USPS sells? If the answer is no, then they are, by definition, not a "for-profit company".
Nonetheless, the legal system has many problems, particularly in areas where it is deliberately designed to generate crimes which can then be used to extort revenue, generate statistics, and provide talking points. One of the more prominent examples in recent times is the red light camera.
Which has nothing to do with unemployed people becoming desperate enough to steal money and/or food.
Are you sure you are speaking of America? Obama (a left wing party member) is president and "the right" are a minority in the Senate and House. Get your facts straight... The left is in charge in America now.
Take a look at the Political Compass. How many dots do you see to the left of the vertical axis? For that matter, there aren't many dots below the horizontal axis, either. As has been said many times, both major parties are pretty much the same, the Republicans are just more extreme than the Democrats.
Right, "octet" is perfectly fine for an 8-bit byte. But if the French word for (8-bit) byte is octet, what would be the word for a 6-bit byte? "Octet" is a subset of "byte"; an octet is a byte, but a byte is not necessarily an octet.
"Recent" would probably be the 1970's, maybe early 1980's. Once IBM stopped having legitimate competitors, the 8-bit byte became the de facto definiton.
When people who want to be law-abiding citizens, can't go about their daily business without being looked at by their government as criminals, then those people eventually stop caring about what is criminal and what isn't.
When the choice is between committing petty theft and starving, most people will choose to commit petty theft, even if they would rather be law-abiding citizens. Trying to implement laws that say "well, he was hungry, so it's okay for him to steal stuff" would most likely be a horrible failure.
People being forced to choose between becoming criminals and starving is a failure of the social system, not the legal system.
I like the french word for Bytes. Octet. So there is no confusion between 4Tb and 4 To.
It's probably too late to change bytes to another word in english;)
Either the French changed recently, or it didn't have a word for byte until recently. A byte is not strictly defined as 8 bits, it's just that the dominant architectures used 8-bit bytes. Other older architectures used other byte sizes.
Unless you are prepared to explain why your religion probably has a higher (but less publicized) level of sexual abuse.
Most other religions probably have a lower level of sexual abuse because they allow ordained clergy to have sex with other adults. After all, it's the very first commandment in the Torah: Be fruitful and multiply.
Anyone that believes that homosexuality is wrong because their religious text says so, and then takes their family out for a nice ham dinner after Church on Sunday, is a full-fledged hypocrite.
Presumably the original Mickey Mouse character design should be in the public domain.
Disney could probably claim the character name and image as trademarks, which don't expire. Even if that isn't the case now, I personally would be okay with allowing it in exchange for shorter copyright terms. You wouldn't be able to create new cartoons and market them as Mickey Mouse, but you can freely watch and share Mickey Mouse cartoons that Disney made 50 years ago.
So go ahead... make it so people like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs or their original employees who became rich developing their products have no motivation to get rich.
So if I have the opportunity to make $10 million this year, I shouldn't bother going for it, because with all these horrible tax increases I'll end up with only $6.5 million instead of $7 million? I definitely see your point. Seriously, I'd only get $6.5 million? Fuck that, then.
Just for the latest, non-revolutionary update to an existing product?
What better time for an outrageous stunt? Nobody (outside the Reality Distortion Field, anyway) would care about a new iPhone that just has a faster CPU and more memory. After this event, though, there will be two months of constant coverage of the new iPhone that made the news just by being left in a bar.
Yes, but do we have a binding 'contract' with Slashdot?
A binding contract by the legal definition, I wouldn't think so. If you violate the Terms of Service, you can't be sued for breach of contract. You might be sued for unauthorized access, but unless you're doing something horrible, the damages would be so small that there wouldn't be a point to suing. Launching a DoS attack might cause enough to damage to make you a target for a lawsuit, but it would be difficult to argue that using the word "red" in a comment caused any damage.
That's pretty much boiler plate for any EULA or TOS. Here is Slashdot's version:
Geeknet reserves the right, at Geeknet's sole discretion, to change, modify, add or remove portions of these Terms periodically.
There's a bit of a difference there, though. The most obvious difference is that one is a purchased product and one is a service. Changes to the Terms of Service also can't really be retroactive in quite the same way. Sony's change to the EULA affects purchases that were made before the changes, instead of only applying to customers that bought a PS3 after the change. Slashdot can change the Terms of Service to make use of the word "red" in any comment a violation, but they can't sue you for unauthorized access because of a Terms of Service violation if you used the word "red" in a comment you posted two years ago.
That being said, if they can retroactively get warrants, they could search property for child pornography, not find any, but instead find a pound of weed then get a warrant saying they were looking for both child pornography and weed, then use the weed as admissible evidence against you in a trial for the possession of that.
Not really. It would require some pretty unusual circumstance for a judge to go along with the need for a retroactive warrant for marijuana possession. Even if you're looking for child pornography, you'd need to convince the judge that you had reason to believe the suspect was in the process of destroying the evidence. The only time a judge will go for it is if the police really couldn't wait for half an hour. In general, that means something like seeing a person drag someone that they just kidnapped into their house, in which case waiting for even half an hour could result in the victim being killed. Any law enforcement officer that tried to bullshit a judge about it would get smacked down pretty hard.
Slashdot Mirror
Just for starters, why isn't "Open in background tab" the default when clicking a link? Chances are you didn't mean to watch a blank fucking screen while it's loading.
Why don't new tabs get focus when you click a link? Chances are you didn't want to have to move the mouse to the tab bar and click again to see the page that you just told the browser you want to see.
There isn't always a single correct answer, is there?
Verizon was doing the buy-one-get-one-free deals. Were the manufacturers giving Verizon any kind of discounts, or is Verizon sucking up the loss in exchange for the service contract? HTC and Motorola may be getting as much per phone as Apple does, they just don't force the carriers to sell the phone at some "suggested" retail price.
Well, it's relevant in that if it turns out nobody is making any money off Android devices, a lot of companies will simply stop making Android devices, and switch to something they can make money from.
The manufacturers are probably making just as much money from sales of Android devices as they would from Windows Mobile or Symbian devices. A hardware sale is a hardware sale, regardless of what OS the hardware runs. The interesting question is if Google is turning a profit from all the resources they've invested.
I can't believe that an article that only has two links to radical right-wing blogs managed to get on the front page of Slashdot.
Really? This isn't even the worst submission this week. You must be new to these parts.
The internet was create by ADULTS for ADULTS. The better solution is to create a ".kids" domain that has the content restriction that everything on it be "kid friendly." That would allow the same ease of use to configure content blockers for children - only allow the ".kids" domain.
Already been proposed
Please tell me you aren't someone who is going to condemn an entire industry because of one accident.
Because of course this is the first major incident that has dumped vast amounts of oil into the environment.
Hehe, that's an entirely separate discussion. I should have said "performance", complete with air quotes.
So your definition of "for-profit company" excludes non-publicly-traded organizations, such as sole proprietorships and private partnerships?
Sorry, that probably should have read "are the answers to both questions no?" For a sole proprietorship, that person would effectively be the CEO. I certainly didn't intend to limit my definition to publicly traded companies that name the person-in-charge "CEO". For private companies, you can substitute "owners" or "investors" for "shareholders".
Here I was thinking that "for-profit company" meant any company not formally classified as a non-profit organization.
Nope, there's also the "not-for-profit" classification. I may be wrong on this, but "non-profit" is used for organizations that are basically charities. Food banks, homeless shelters, cancer research organizations, etc. would be non-profit. "Not-for-profit" is for organizations that clearly aren't charities, but that don't have owners, executives, or shareholders that get extra money at the end of the year. Places like research labs that are spin-offs of universities (MIT has a few around Boston) are often not-for-profits. The USPS would probably be considered such a not-for-profit.
The USPS is a for-profit company backed by the federal government.
Does the USPS have shareholders? Is there a CEO and a board of directors who get bonuses at the end of the year based on how many stamps the USPS sells? If the answer is no, then they are, by definition, not a "for-profit company".
If you're gonna go with 6 bit bytes, might as well invent new words to go with it.
I would assume that "sextet" would be the specific term.
Nonetheless, the legal system has many problems, particularly in areas where it is deliberately designed to generate crimes which can then be used to extort revenue, generate statistics, and provide talking points. One of the more prominent examples in recent times is the red light camera.
Which has nothing to do with unemployed people becoming desperate enough to steal money and/or food.
Are you sure you are speaking of America? Obama (a left wing party member) is president and "the right" are a minority in the Senate and House. Get your facts straight... The left is in charge in America now.
Take a look at the Political Compass. How many dots do you see to the left of the vertical axis? For that matter, there aren't many dots below the horizontal axis, either. As has been said many times, both major parties are pretty much the same, the Republicans are just more extreme than the Democrats.
Right, "octet" is perfectly fine for an 8-bit byte. But if the French word for (8-bit) byte is octet, what would be the word for a 6-bit byte? "Octet" is a subset of "byte"; an octet is a byte, but a byte is not necessarily an octet.
"Recent" would probably be the 1970's, maybe early 1980's. Once IBM stopped having legitimate competitors, the 8-bit byte became the de facto definiton.
When people who want to be law-abiding citizens, can't go about their daily business without being looked at by their government as criminals, then those people eventually stop caring about what is criminal and what isn't.
When the choice is between committing petty theft and starving, most people will choose to commit petty theft, even if they would rather be law-abiding citizens. Trying to implement laws that say "well, he was hungry, so it's okay for him to steal stuff" would most likely be a horrible failure.
People being forced to choose between becoming criminals and starving is a failure of the social system, not the legal system.
Or, it is a symptom of a broken legal system, in which anyone, on any given day, commits dozens of "crimes."
So you're saying that in a legal system that is functioning correctly, stealing money and physical goods would not be crimes?
I like the french word for Bytes. Octet. So there is no confusion between 4Tb and 4 To.
It's probably too late to change bytes to another word in english ;)
Either the French changed recently, or it didn't have a word for byte until recently. A byte is not strictly defined as 8 bits, it's just that the dominant architectures used 8-bit bytes. Other older architectures used other byte sizes.
Unless you are prepared to explain why your religion probably has a higher (but less publicized) level of sexual abuse.
Most other religions probably have a lower level of sexual abuse because they allow ordained clergy to have sex with other adults. After all, it's the very first commandment in the Torah: Be fruitful and multiply.
Leviticus specifically states that gays, or at least gay men, "must be put to death".
Obligatory question: Why can't I own a Canadian?.
Anyone that believes that homosexuality is wrong because their religious text says so, and then takes their family out for a nice ham dinner after Church on Sunday, is a full-fledged hypocrite.
Presumably the original Mickey Mouse character design should be in the public domain.
Disney could probably claim the character name and image as trademarks, which don't expire. Even if that isn't the case now, I personally would be okay with allowing it in exchange for shorter copyright terms. You wouldn't be able to create new cartoons and market them as Mickey Mouse, but you can freely watch and share Mickey Mouse cartoons that Disney made 50 years ago.
So go ahead ... make it so people like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs or their original employees who became rich developing their products have no motivation to get rich.
So if I have the opportunity to make $10 million this year, I shouldn't bother going for it, because with all these horrible tax increases I'll end up with only $6.5 million instead of $7 million? I definitely see your point. Seriously, I'd only get $6.5 million? Fuck that, then.
Just for the latest, non-revolutionary update to an existing product?
What better time for an outrageous stunt? Nobody (outside the Reality Distortion Field, anyway) would care about a new iPhone that just has a faster CPU and more memory. After this event, though, there will be two months of constant coverage of the new iPhone that made the news just by being left in a bar.
Yes, but do we have a binding 'contract' with Slashdot?
A binding contract by the legal definition, I wouldn't think so. If you violate the Terms of Service, you can't be sued for breach of contract. You might be sued for unauthorized access, but unless you're doing something horrible, the damages would be so small that there wouldn't be a point to suing. Launching a DoS attack might cause enough to damage to make you a target for a lawsuit, but it would be difficult to argue that using the word "red" in a comment caused any damage.
That's pretty much boiler plate for any EULA or TOS. Here is Slashdot's version: Geeknet reserves the right, at Geeknet's sole discretion, to change, modify, add or remove portions of these Terms periodically.
There's a bit of a difference there, though. The most obvious difference is that one is a purchased product and one is a service. Changes to the Terms of Service also can't really be retroactive in quite the same way. Sony's change to the EULA affects purchases that were made before the changes, instead of only applying to customers that bought a PS3 after the change. Slashdot can change the Terms of Service to make use of the word "red" in any comment a violation, but they can't sue you for unauthorized access because of a Terms of Service violation if you used the word "red" in a comment you posted two years ago.
That being said, if they can retroactively get warrants, they could search property for child pornography, not find any, but instead find a pound of weed then get a warrant saying they were looking for both child pornography and weed, then use the weed as admissible evidence against you in a trial for the possession of that.
Not really. It would require some pretty unusual circumstance for a judge to go along with the need for a retroactive warrant for marijuana possession. Even if you're looking for child pornography, you'd need to convince the judge that you had reason to believe the suspect was in the process of destroying the evidence. The only time a judge will go for it is if the police really couldn't wait for half an hour. In general, that means something like seeing a person drag someone that they just kidnapped into their house, in which case waiting for even half an hour could result in the victim being killed. Any law enforcement officer that tried to bullshit a judge about it would get smacked down pretty hard.