I blame the group of scientists who go around declaring successful nerds as "being autistic" and who are taking action to stop the trend by treating every smart child as autistic as the root cause of it becoming a pejorative term.
There's a wide gap between "you will work for free" and an expansive intellectual property regime that's worse than Robber Barons on the Rhine river where you get taxed every 5 feet for nothing.
NOBODY is even talking about "working for free" here. This is about stuff that is older than you are. The only people (potentially) making money are mooches.
Sophocles wants his cut.
This headline is so dangerously bad that it makes me want to tag slashdot as a troll.
Seriously, this is so bad lawyers can get involved. Some editor needs to go fix it.
> I have no idea where the idea came from that the music publishers didn't have to renegotiate contracts to get digital rights to the music.
For example: Def Leppard started cloning their 80s works in order to avoid getting a raw deal on them being published as MP3s. Clearly whatever contract they signed in the 80s managed to to be broad enough to cover a means of distribution that no one even dreamed up yet.
You can do that if you have a smart lawyer. You don't have to mention iTunes by name in 1983 or 1964.
Cute. But 3 miles isn't going to be good enough if all you've got is a 22 kiloton airburst. The White House, the President, and even all of Congress would be just fine. All you'd do is kill a bunch of civilians in the suburbs.
Also, 777s don't have much in the way of visibility except directly ahead. The pilot wouldn't know that a Sidewinder had been fired to set off the flares. Also, an F16 carries an internal 20mm cannon that can't be distracted by flares or ECM. And a 777 is a fairly big and poorly-maneouvering target.
Then why do I willingly pay for both Netflix and Prime? Those services are extremely convenient, but the selection is not always there. Usenet/torrent are good fill-ins for those services, and probably will be until these knuckleheads realize that their government-enabled monopoly isn't really very enforceable anymore.
Much like many men in his position, charity is just a public relations whitewash. This is expecially obvious when all of this occurs in their "retirement". Of course Gates didn't invent this idea, he swiped it from someone else.
> last I checked we were sticking our noses into Crimea situation
You mean the situation where we are a party to a treaty that says that Ukraine keeps it's borders intact in return for NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT?
You mean THAT situation?
You repost by posting again. You are allowed to do this.
My point, which appears to have flown above you like an exploding Hindenberg showering corposes all over (sorry, too soon?) is that if the entire world started focussing on a different terrorist target, terrorists would be unlikely to immediately think "Let's kill people in NYC" as their first thought.
And let's be honest, nobody would miss Tallahassee. Not even those of us in Florida. Rick Scott's an asshole.
Also Texas, while (obviously) having a lower population density, probably has more people in it than Manhatten. So diverting terrorists there would both make it more difficult for them (more work per person killed) and would ensure that if they did they do the world a few favors by getting rid of the largest number of loudmouthed jerks possible.
Look people. Can we knock it off with the "Terrorists attacking New York City" scenarios? If we're going to protect NYC in the long term, we need to start playing up the relative importance of cities we actually wouldn't mind being attacked.
Can you repost your scenario as an attack on Tallahassee, or Phoenix, or some city in Texas or something?
NYC is awesome. Sure, the inhabitants get a little arrogant from time to time, but you kinda understand their point. We need to divert the terrorists to somewhere else, somewhere where the country would benefit from a terrorist attack.
FWIW, it doesn't matter if Google buys a baby mulching building (all running OpenBSD, natch'...), starts selling your information to advertisers (I mean really, not selling services to advertisers that work more effectively because Google has information about you, I mean actually selling your name, address, and fetishes to anyone who wants to advertise with them), arranges a Presidential assassination, blows up the Empire State Building, and worst of all, builds a private monorail to ferry employees between San Francisco and its offices.
Even if Google does all of those things, Android is still open.
This story is not about whether Android is open. It's about whether Google is putting pressure on its partners to ensure they stick with Google's vision about Android when distributing it, and likewise whether Microsoft are doing what they've done since the dawn of time.
Is Google right to this? Probably not. That said, the backlash seems far greater than it ought to be, probably because of a combination of anti-Google shill campaigns of late, because people expect Google to be better than this (nobody expects this of Microsoft which is why it's not a shock), and because several other things they've done lately with Android, such as pushing GMS, which were actually aimed at ending criticisms of Android for being "Fragmented" have been closed and against the entire perceived ethos of Android.
Also their search engine is worse than BIng these days, and that's not because Bing is any good.
Android? It's still open. Ask Amazon. Ask CyanogenMod and the non-commercial phone modding community. Google can't, and probably won't try to, close it. They will continue to try to control it, understandably, but the cat is out of the bag.
Well I envy my cat in the same way: he's happily living his life hunting mice in the garden, eating his food, sleeping and getting petted by yours truly, blissfully unaware of how the food gets in his bowl, how the mice come to exist in the garden, how he gets to sleep warm and cozy even in the dead of winter, what his purpose is and how his life will end.
Comfy, care-free and appealing though a domestic cat's life may be, it doesn't mean I want to be a cat though. I much prefer having a brain big enough to look at the world in a more profound way, even if it can be unsettling.
The great thing about religion is, if you look at it with a critical mind and a little bit of reason, it's fairly quick and easy to dismiss as pure fantasy.