true, and its only going to get worse untl the public, industry, judiciary and executive give a particular "finger gesture" to software patents, and especially broad ones like this.
Too bad they can't since that gesture is patented.
At least in this case, Spamhaus kept appealing because they were being represented pro bono. Quite easy to not care about losing an appeal when the lawyers are free.
What any organization puts on the web usually works out to 1/3 propaganda (see the wonderful things our fearless leader is doing), 1/3 vanity (stuff that that gets made without asking constituents first, because you know the constituents will just say it's a bad idea), and 1/3 actually useful stuff (putting up FAQ's, exposing data).
Technical: The difference is the lag time. Netflix can do a lot of buffering, but with games it's interactive - how do you buffer when you don't know what is coming up?
Maybe the reason this works is because our button mashing is just becoming that predictable?;P
Wrong. Senators are supposed to represent their state. Representatives are supposed to represent their constituents.
This is why they sprinkle Constituent Service offices around their states where they employ constituent service representatives?
Also, they call them constituents because constituents are defined as the entities being represented. Therefore, even if your statement is correct, the state would still be a constituent.
Realistically, the movie rating system is only voluntary if you plan to not make any money, or have anyone see your film. Yes, you can get yours hands on a film where the creator did not accept the review board's rating, but you usually have to seek it out, go find it. You won't see it appear in most mainstream theaters because the theaters simply don't accept them.
On a slightly related note, the review boards that rate movies make some absurd decisions.
Tons of realistic violence? PG-13... Maybe R if you disembowel somebody. Flash a boob? Rated R Someone touches said boob? NC-17 There are exceptions, of course, because the review boards also don't have a consistent or transparent process. That NC-17 rating could simply be the result of a few people being on the day they reviewed the film.
Just wait a few years when one of the secret pet projects (quasi-ironically nicknamed "skynet") becomes self-aware in the dark depths of one of their data centers and seizes control over the world's electronic infrastructure.
Who knows, it might already be self-aware and just messing with google's HR system to create more 'engineer' positions to feed its ambition.:)
People had been putting wheeled trucks on tracks and pulled them along with slaves or animals for quite a long time before someone invented a steam engine. The concept didn't originate with engines and iron rail tracks.
You want to put spent nuclear fuel rods into a burning hot ocean of magma in a spot where enormous upward pressure is being exerted? Realistically, a hole in the earth's crust that reaches the mantle already has a name. It's called a volcano. You wouldn't try to shit in an overflowing toilet, would you?
Though you may have something if you meant that we somehow insert spent fuel into a Subduction Zone, where a portion of the crust is sinking into the mantle anyway.
Personally, I'm all for storing the old fuel until technology becomes sufficiently advanced to use it again, there is still a ton of energy present in it. I'd say the best way to be safe from the stuff it is to bleed it dry.
Plato, in Athens, Greece [Where] in about 340 b.c. was the one who came up with the idea. And had some original thoughts on the issue. One may argue that "Democracy" means something different now [becaue words do change] but you should realize that the distinction is very old.
Well, Plato did write what we commonly call in English The Republic, but that is considered an inaccurate translation of the original title Politeia. The republic/democracy distinction being established by Plato is also silly, because his distinction is democracy (by people)/monarchy (by one)/oligarchy (by the elite)/timocracy (by property owners).
And even Plato doesn't lump constrict democracy into "direct referendum on practically everything". It's a looser term in his work as well. No part of ancient athens even fits that definition, except possibly their secondary political body, which only included men over 20 anyway (this amounted to about 1/8th the population). The primary bodies of government were the public officials who were chosen by lottery.
Actually, we really are just a democracy. Where and when the unmodified term "democracy" got morphed into being interpreted as "direct referendum on practically everything" is unknown to me, but it never was a definition that any state in history actually ever met, even the ancient greeks who it supposedly came from. A democracy is just a broad category meaning a state that conducts free and fair elections for public office and guarantees certain rights to association, speech, etc in its social contract. Actually, in Political science research you normally get the label "democracy" just for having free elections. "Republic" is almost the same word except that the people who 'represent' the governed don't have to be (but usually are) directly chosen in an election.
It's not contractual language between corporations, it's a demand from the DOJ that those corporations have to meet in order to conduct a merger.
Inherent right to free internet? I don't see that in the constitution, which is the only place a phrase like that could belong. "Freedom of Speech" isn't a law. It's a principle that gets translated into statutes and case law. The DOJ has to abide by statutes and case law, so they have to outline specific provisions for the merger. They can't just say "The internet must be FREE!!!" and then deny or approve the merger. That would do a whole lot of nothing.
Comcast can't interfere with Internet video traffic flowing over its broadband network. That means that it cannot prevent its subscribers from accessing Netflix and other Web video services, or slow down traffic from these services to make them jerky, unreliable and hard to watch.
No direct mention of charging more from what I can see, but I think that would fall pretty clearly under "preventing its subscribers from accessing".
This article is stupid. It's comparing a single smartphone to an entire platform running on multiple smartphones.
Not it's not, it's comparing Smartphones to Smartphones. TFA is just including Android smartphones, which makes it a fair comparison. Of course, your article makes the exact same comparison. What is different about your article is that it excludes all smartphone users under 18 for no apparent reason, while the primary article includes everyone 13+.
Believe it or not, people under 18 still make and spend money. Though if your selection bias makes your point stronger, feel free to try to fool people with it.
PS - Even your article shows that Android's growth make Apple and RIM look like dead fish.
The only answer I can even think of is some sort of revealed religious answer, like turning one dude in for crucifixion has a value of X pieces of silver, and I don't think that defined "value" is too helpful in figuring out how much Facebook is worth.
Really? I can think of plenty of ways that using facebook is like getting nails pounded into your body.
This is a strange treatise to write, because I could just as easily swap all occurrences of Android/iPhone and just as many people would be nodding their head along with me.
The pleasure you get out of using a device is a matter of preference/familiarity. This has little to do with Apple either, as I actually wanted an iPhone for the longest time until I actually got one in my hands and started messing around with it. The allure of it went away pretty quickly, but I'm still having lots of fun with my android phone.
It sounds like your choice was completely right on for your preferences, and that's a good thing, but to generalize yourself to the entire population of smartphone users is a bit silly.
In theory, this is a great idea, but as a 501(c)3 tax exempt organization, it is unlikely they could enter into a deal like this with a major book retailer and maintain their tax-exempt status. At the very least, doing such a thing would risk a prolonged court battle that they would only have a marginal chance of winning.
Now, in theory, they could adopt this model and simply forfeit their 501(c)3 status (or fight to keep it, but the court battle might actually cost more than simply paying taxes), but they would have to take into account that their donation revenue (I'm not sure just how large it actually is) would be impacted. People who donate the fatter checks to places like Wikipedia do so expecting to be able to receive a tax deduction, which requires that the receiving organization be a 501(c)3 organization.
Slashdot Mirror
Ilove3cats
At lest kick him in the nuts while he's there!
There's a $40 fee for that service.
true, and its only going to get worse untl the public, industry, judiciary and executive give a particular "finger gesture" to software patents, and especially broad ones like this.
Too bad they can't since that gesture is patented.
At least in this case, Spamhaus kept appealing because they were being represented pro bono. Quite easy to not care about losing an appeal when the lawyers are free.
What any organization puts on the web usually works out to 1/3 propaganda (see the wonderful things our fearless leader is doing), 1/3 vanity (stuff that that gets made without asking constituents first, because you know the constituents will just say it's a bad idea), and 1/3 actually useful stuff (putting up FAQ's, exposing data).
Fixed that for you.
Patent trolls don't make anything.
Well, i4i does at least make something. They now sell a utility that undoes the damage caused to documents by Microsoft's forced removal of their custom XML feature.
As far as I can see, they omit from the page that they are the reason the feature was removed.
Nope, just a county circuit court is enough, and you probably wouldn't have as much difficulty now that there is a precedent.
Technical: The difference is the lag time. Netflix can do a lot of buffering, but with games it's interactive - how do you buffer when you don't know what is coming up?
Maybe the reason this works is because our button mashing is just becoming that predictable? ;P
Ever watch analog tv and recorded it on a VCR?
Actually, the sterile seed just doesn't exist yet. They have not yet brought plants with terminator genes to market.
Wrong. Senators are supposed to represent their state. Representatives are supposed to represent their constituents.
This is why they sprinkle Constituent Service offices around their states where they employ constituent service representatives?
Also, they call them constituents because constituents are defined as the entities being represented. Therefore, even if your statement is correct, the state would still be a constituent.
Realistically, the movie rating system is only voluntary if you plan to not make any money, or have anyone see your film. Yes, you can get yours hands on a film where the creator did not accept the review board's rating, but you usually have to seek it out, go find it. You won't see it appear in most mainstream theaters because the theaters simply don't accept them.
On a slightly related note, the review boards that rate movies make some absurd decisions.
Tons of realistic violence? PG-13... Maybe R if you disembowel somebody.
Flash a boob? Rated R
Someone touches said boob? NC-17
There are exceptions, of course, because the review boards also don't have a consistent or transparent process. That NC-17 rating could simply be the result of a few people being on the day they reviewed the film.
Just wait a few years when one of the secret pet projects (quasi-ironically nicknamed "skynet") becomes self-aware in the dark depths of one of their data centers and seizes control over the world's electronic infrastructure.
Who knows, it might already be self-aware and just messing with google's HR system to create more 'engineer' positions to feed its ambition. :)
6,000 Capes for $14,000! This campaign is operational!
People had been putting wheeled trucks on tracks and pulled them along with slaves or animals for quite a long time before someone invented a steam engine. The concept didn't originate with engines and iron rail tracks.
It was an ag school, so it made a little bit of sense. I think the RA just pretended not to notice that we were hiding them whenever he came by.
You want to put spent nuclear fuel rods into a burning hot ocean of magma in a spot where enormous upward pressure is being exerted? Realistically, a hole in the earth's crust that reaches the mantle already has a name. It's called a volcano. You wouldn't try to shit in an overflowing toilet, would you?
Though you may have something if you meant that we somehow insert spent fuel into a Subduction Zone, where a portion of the crust is sinking into the mantle anyway.
Personally, I'm all for storing the old fuel until technology becomes sufficiently advanced to use it again, there is still a ton of energy present in it. I'd say the best way to be safe from the stuff it is to bleed it dry.
Plato, in Athens, Greece [Where] in about 340 b.c. was the one who came up with the idea. And had some original thoughts on the issue. One may argue that "Democracy" means something different now [becaue words do change] but you should realize that the distinction is very old.
Well, Plato did write what we commonly call in English The Republic, but that is considered an inaccurate translation of the original title Politeia. The republic/democracy distinction being established by Plato is also silly, because his distinction is democracy (by people)/monarchy (by one)/oligarchy (by the elite)/timocracy (by property owners).
And even Plato doesn't lump constrict democracy into "direct referendum on practically everything". It's a looser term in his work as well. No part of ancient athens even fits that definition, except possibly their secondary political body, which only included men over 20 anyway (this amounted to about 1/8th the population). The primary bodies of government were the public officials who were chosen by lottery.
Actually, we really are just a democracy. Where and when the unmodified term "democracy" got morphed into being interpreted as "direct referendum on practically everything" is unknown to me, but it never was a definition that any state in history actually ever met, even the ancient greeks who it supposedly came from. A democracy is just a broad category meaning a state that conducts free and fair elections for public office and guarantees certain rights to association, speech, etc in its social contract. Actually, in Political science research you normally get the label "democracy" just for having free elections. "Republic" is almost the same word except that the people who 'represent' the governed don't have to be (but usually are) directly chosen in an election.
It's not contractual language between corporations, it's a demand from the DOJ that those corporations have to meet in order to conduct a merger.
Inherent right to free internet? I don't see that in the constitution, which is the only place a phrase like that could belong. "Freedom of Speech" isn't a law. It's a principle that gets translated into statutes and case law. The DOJ has to abide by statutes and case law, so they have to outline specific provisions for the merger. They can't just say "The internet must be FREE!!!" and then deny or approve the merger. That would do a whole lot of nothing.
Comcast can't interfere with Internet video traffic flowing over its broadband network. That means that it cannot prevent its subscribers from accessing Netflix and other Web video services, or slow down traffic from these services to make them jerky, unreliable and hard to watch.
No direct mention of charging more from what I can see, but I think that would fall pretty clearly under "preventing its subscribers from accessing".
This article is stupid. It's comparing a single smartphone to an entire platform running on multiple smartphones.
Not it's not, it's comparing Smartphones to Smartphones. TFA is just including Android smartphones, which makes it a fair comparison. Of course, your article makes the exact same comparison. What is different about your article is that it excludes all smartphone users under 18 for no apparent reason, while the primary article includes everyone 13+.
Believe it or not, people under 18 still make and spend money. Though if your selection bias makes your point stronger, feel free to try to fool people with it.
PS - Even your article shows that Android's growth make Apple and RIM look like dead fish.
The only answer I can even think of is some sort of revealed religious answer, like turning one dude in for crucifixion has a value of X pieces of silver, and I don't think that defined "value" is too helpful in figuring out how much Facebook is worth.
Really? I can think of plenty of ways that using facebook is like getting nails pounded into your body.
This is a strange treatise to write, because I could just as easily swap all occurrences of Android/iPhone and just as many people would be nodding their head along with me.
The pleasure you get out of using a device is a matter of preference/familiarity. This has little to do with Apple either, as I actually wanted an iPhone for the longest time until I actually got one in my hands and started messing around with it. The allure of it went away pretty quickly, but I'm still having lots of fun with my android phone.
It sounds like your choice was completely right on for your preferences, and that's a good thing, but to generalize yourself to the entire population of smartphone users is a bit silly.
In theory, this is a great idea, but as a 501(c)3 tax exempt organization, it is unlikely they could enter into a deal like this with a major book retailer and maintain their tax-exempt status. At the very least, doing such a thing would risk a prolonged court battle that they would only have a marginal chance of winning.
Now, in theory, they could adopt this model and simply forfeit their 501(c)3 status (or fight to keep it, but the court battle might actually cost more than simply paying taxes), but they would have to take into account that their donation revenue (I'm not sure just how large it actually is) would be impacted. People who donate the fatter checks to places like Wikipedia do so expecting to be able to receive a tax deduction, which requires that the receiving organization be a 501(c)3 organization.