Autodesk does not have a monopoly on 3D rendering or animation by any means, but it now owns a lot more of the market than it once did.
Blender and others are still doing just fine.
Well, we do not require transvaginal ultrasounds for women who want to get abortions.
You also make it virtually impossible for the average citizen to carry a firearm for self-defense, an activity that's allowed with very few questions in 43 of the 50 States. You can't even legally carry pepper spray in MA without a license, something that I'm pretty sure is allowed without a license in every other State in the Union.
Thanks, but no thanks. Plenty of States to choose from that don't regulate self-defense or abortion.
"Even at that, both Uberoid and cyanogen both have some extra apps I'll never use that I'd like to get rid of.."
It is my understanding that as long as it's not an essential system app, Cyanogen will let you delete it.
My current phone has had some hardware compatibility issues. The radio did not work when I tried Cyanogen on it so I had to switch back. I'm going to keep an eye out for a newer version.
"The dirty little secret of the CPU industry is that chips went from "good enough" to insanely overpowered several years so unless you are doing a job that needs every last drop of power you can squeeze (wave simulation, heavy number crunching) you'd be hard pressed in a blind trial to tell an AMD from an Intel....except when you got the bill and saw how much money you can save."
Tell that to my $3000 laptop which is now 6 years old and on which I do development work... slamming both cores pretty hard, because I have 7 applications running at once, all of them necessary to what I do.
Granted, that isn't your everyday home user, and that is on my laptop, but it's not THAT unusual either. And don't forget games!
As for AMD... there is still the chance of a comeback but slipped behind Intel in the desktop market and are struggling to keep up.
"Then I think they really have a shot here in the states too as I don't know how many folks I've talked to that are seriously pissed at their Android phones because the carriers are so piss poor when it comes to pushing updates."
I won't argue with you there. Presumably, they will be able to update the OS as long as the hardware will support it.
"You've never seen someone do something and had a strong conviction one way or the other whether they did it by accident or on purpose? I know I have."
Of course I have. But that's not the point. This is a law, for which someone can be convicted and thrown in jail. So the point isn't what you think, at all. The POINT is what you can prove in court.
"I have a reasonable expectation of privacy."
Not in public you don't. If you're in public, and you hang it out, I'll take a picture of it. Maybe even accidentally! So don't hang it out.
"If you simply acknowledge that taking photographs where a person or persons are the primary subject requires disclosure and consent solves the problem no less neatly."
I already did. Did you read the whole thread you are replying to, or just that one comment above? Give me a break.
But even then, there are exceptions. BIG exceptions. News? You can't go by that, because who decides what is a news service, and what is not? The government CAN'T decide that... the Constitution says so. And a judge just recently ruled about that very thing: if you're blogging or writing about things on the Internet, for example, you have the same legal protections as the New York Times.
I have no idea to this day if Simpson did it or not
"Most photography would not be affected by what I suggested, only photography that reveals parts of the subject's body which were actually covered by the subjects clothing, in which case informed consent would be required.."
You're making a distinction that isn't real. It is contradictory. If it's part of the body that's covered, then by definition there will be no picture of it. It if is in a picture, then by definition it was not covered.
And if you are saying a part of the body that is intended to be covered, then you are opening yourself up to gross abuse of the law, because anybody can lie about their intent, any time they want.
So why stop there? Why not just throw people in jail for any crime on somebody's say-so?
What's that you say? Because you should need actual evidence to convict someone of a crime?
Yep. There ya go. That's my point.
"Not impossible, just illegal. It would be up to a judge to determine if any particular photo did more public good than it harmed the people being photographed."
Okay, technically not impossible. But unreasonably impractical to the point that people would simply stop taking public photography. If any public photograph could be taken to court on anybody's say-so, you have an impractical law that would be nearly impossible to enforce.
Laws are not intended to be so vague that anybody can take someone else to court whenever they disagree. In common-law countries like the U.S., laws are required to be reasonable.
"Reading this and the first post, I think this is still a slightly different version of "she was asking for it". I'm sure you could see it if you tried to separate the two sets of crimes."
The problem is that you are ASSUMING, in the first place, that the person taking photographs of something that happens in public is committing a crime. On what basis do you make this judgment? Where would you draw the line? (And this is the whole problem.) You want to take pictures of a public building? Why not? That's not a crime, is it? Well, what if there are people on the front steps of the building? Is it suddenly a crime to take a picture?
There are all kinds of ways you can go to extremes here. But at some point those extremes become reality.
So, now: let's just say that we agree you can still take pictures of that public building, if a few people just happen to be standing near it that will be in your picture. That seems reasonable.
Then some woman standing on those steps lifts up her dress. (Maybe you didn't notice, maybe you did.) Should it now be illegal to take that same picture? Why? What gives that person the right to control where you take your pictures?
That may sound ridiculous to you but it's actually quite important. If you say no, it is still your right to take that public picture, when does tht change? Does it change when the woman lifting up her dress is standing in a crowd and facing you? Does it change when you are in a smaller public place, like a food court in a mall? Maybe in a bus?
See, it isn't a matter of "her asking for it", like some people would say if she walked down the wrong alley at night in a skimpy dress. (You and I would probably agree that she was NOT "asking for it", but just as an example of what we're talking about.) Because a rape or something of that nature is already a crime anyway. You'd be saying (wrongly, probably, but still saying) she was asking you to commit the crime.
But the reason THIS situation is not the same, is that she's not "asking for" someone to commit a crime... she's CONTROLLING WHETHER or not it is a crime. Do you see the difference?
If she were not there, it would not be a crime for you to take a picture of the bus. If she is there, and the laws are made that way, SHE could decide whether a crime was committed on her merest whim, by simply saying what her "intentions" were. She can control your behavior by forcing you do not do something you would otherwise be able to legally do... and decide whether or not you are a criminal, any time she wants.
And that's not what laws are supposed to be about. Laws say what is illegal, people on the street don't. That's why there has to be a line, and it can't be left up to vague "intentions". You can't leave it up to somebody's say-so whether something was a crime or not. (Again, that's a different situation from saying somebody is guilty of theft or something which is a crime anyway, they're just giving witness.)
But if you make the simple rule: "If you don't want it seen, don't show it" then everybody knows what the line is, and nobody has to try to read anybody else's mind to know whether their behavior is criminal or not. AND... you don't have anybody bullying anybody else over threats of saying they committed a crime when they didn't.
And that's actually the way the law is in most places. In one state nearby, for instance, they tried to pass a law against "upskirt" photographs, but they couldn't because they could not find a way to define the law. It is legal to go naked in public if you want, but if you do -- because it's public -- you can be photographed. How can you square that with a law against taking photos up a skirt? Answer: you can't. Not without saying somebody is guilty of a crime based on nothing but someone else's word.
"at some point every product category sees a slowing of new features in new releases look at desktop OS's, smartphones, etc"
Yes, but it tends to slow more when a relative monopoly gets control of the market.
When Intel pretty much owned the desktop CPU market, innovation was slow and CPUs were very expensive. When others like AMD started to compete in the x86 market, things started moving much faster and getting lots cheaper.
It's called competition in a free market, man. It works.
You may have noticed that now AMD has started dragging ass in the desktop CPU market, Intel hasn't been improving as fast as well.
Sure, there are technological obstacles to overcome today, but that has always been the case. Competition helps the market. We need a competitor for Intel desktop chips, because desktops are not going away any time soon.
"Legacy" is a buzzword for "old."
Pretty much. In programmer-speak, "legacy code" is anything that was already there when you started working on the project.
So if somebody else was writing the program last month, but they left and your team started working on it this week, anything already in the project is "legacy code". That's basically what the word "legacy" means: something you "inherited" from someone else. (Or in this case, some other project, coder, or team.)
Some people have started using "legacy" to mean "old", but that's really not where it came from. It doesn't have to be old in order to be legacy. It just has to come from someone else.
PV panels on top of buses. Bad idea.
I suspect it would be really hard to build a full-sized EV bus that used less total fuel, considering the transmission and charging losses, and the fuel equivalence for the additional wealth needed to purchase such a thing.
I dunno. Consider how much mass school buses have, I would think you could recoup a huge amount of energy with regenerative braking alone. And unlike cars which only stop at red lights and stop signs, school buses also stop at every pickup/drop (every kid's house in rural areas) and all railroad crossings.
Every town has traffic problems at 5:00pm. I've experience the traffic in Austin, Houston, San Antonio. Dallas, Chicago, Lansing, Grand Rapids, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Columbus (OH), Louisville (KY), New York, Buffalo, Toronto, Detroit and several other places around the country. Austin traffic is not bad at all.
If what they've been doing hasn't solved the problem, tell them to do something else. -- Gerald Weinberg, "The Secrets of Consulting"