Comment Re:I call bullshit (Score 1) 549
Keith Olbermann...
I like him as a sports guy though.
Keith Olbermann...
I like him as a sports guy though.
Yeah, the Bing icon showing up on its own did kind of piss me off too. That I had a problem with.
I can confirm this is true. They pushed a Bing icon to my Storm that propmted me to download the Bing Mobile app, but Google is still my default search in the BlackBerry browser.
"Who's" is a contraction of "who is". It should read "There's one thing stronger than all the armies in the world and that is an idea whose time has come. - Victor Hugo"
The EMT who was training us explained that stories often change through those multiple askings. My experience confirmed her explanation. As another commenter mentioned, the truth GRADUALLY comes out. Though many people will answer "What's your medical history?" accurately each time, some will change the story based on who is there, how much time they've had to think about it, once they've calmed down, and whether something else you've said reminded them.
"Do you have any medications or history I should know about?" once turned from "No" into "I have a chronic medical condition and take numerous medications for the condition" based on some gentle reminders. "Could you be pregnant?" turns from "No" into "Yes" once family members are no longer within hearing range.
A lot of medical inefficiencies make more sense when the soft squishy human side is taken into account.
Right!
That's why you store a LaTeX document in git.
Oh, and get some nerdier friends
Ah... OK.
Well, my side of the argument still holds - just because someone is bound to ignore a stupid law, and hence mitigate its bad effect, this does not excuse the stupid law.
Or put differently, patenting math would have led to either one or few owners of everything in the field, or to (some) people ignoring the law and only letting those who do not get hurt.
In both cases, the better solution is not to patent math.
Same with software...
The fact remains that in most sensible implementations, the user is unable to run arbitrary code outside his own directory.
Firstly, that means none of the common Linux (or UNIX in general) distributions are "sensible".
Secondly, how does only letting users run code they've downloaded into their home directory add any meaningful additional security to the average computer ? The problem is they can run code in the first place - where it's located when they do a is minor semantic issue.
Not the greatest mod ever, but he probably saved a ton of cash
Unlikely.
Logic board http://www.powerbookmedic.com/xcart1/product.php?productid=17001 : $250.
+ drive, memory.
Or he could have spent a bit more and bought a (new) Mac Mini and had something nice.
Gee, case, PS, MB, memory, disk, graphics card. Et voila, look ma, I built a computer. Get your hands on a Mac Pro MB and the rest of the parts are the same as for any other PC.
Color me unimpressed.
Yes, and this is indistinguishable from the concept of "a server," which makes the "cloud" part of "private cloud" even more meaningless than usual. As I said.
It's not that scientists haven't been able to reproduce what happened over a million years that engenders skepticism. It's that scientists manage to make a nut and a bolt in the lab, and evolution cheerleaders point to it and say, "And in a million years, it becomes a car! WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW, JESUS BOY?"
I think it's neat that we're getting hints about how life can possibly form from ordinary chemistry. But they're just hints, and it's just a possibility. Hand-waving, story-telling and invoking the million-year magick is not all that enlightening.
And what if the big corporations go on patenting sprees and start patenting anything imaginable?
Well, first they have to invent it, which means it has to be new and nonobvious - so no patenting "filing a patent" or "earning money". And if they do invent something, they have to disclose it to the world and teach us all how to do it. And if they've really done something new and nonobvious and it's actually valuable and innovative, why shouldn't they have a limited period to exploit that invention? Particularly when, by it's very definition, it's limited, and 20 years later, everyone gets to do this new, nonobvious, and valuable method?
I think most of the people who complain about the patent system, whether they realize it or not, are primarily concerned about the "new and nonobvious" part, rather than subject matter eligibility. We don't like it when someone gets a patent on a method of swinging on a swing, or investing in a hedge fund, or tickling a cat. But that's because those have either been done before, or are so freaking obvious that it's removing something from the public domain if you grant a patent on them... and that's a question of novelty and obviousness, not subject matter.
Quit your trolling. You can patent general easy-to-think-of ideas which would then cover any real innovations. This is constantly being done today.
UNIX is hot. It's more than hot. It's steaming. It's quicksilver lightning with a laserbeam kicker. -- Michael Jay Tucker
