I see more than a few F-250s that don't have a spec of dirt on them, no equipment near them, wheels and shocks in a configuration completely unsuitable for doing any work. As a matter of fact, most of the trucks that I see that aren't directly used to carry landscaping or construction equipment have never been near any work or towing.
And you're still conflating two things that are not the same: piracy (modern version) and theft. Merely putting an emphasis on your statement does not make it so. Piracy might now mean copyright infringement, but it is still not theft. You sound like a child if you can't differentiate between depriving someone of property and illicitly copying content.
Yes, there may be cases where leniency is considered (your example of a child doing it), but that doesn't change the fact that they did something against the law.
That's your final argument? It's bad because it's against the law? Somehow I suspect that this is only your position because you think it doesn't affect you.
Haven't needed to do so in 4 years.
When I do, the local council and even local supermarkets have recycling boxes for them. Pretty standard fare in the UK, as far as I can see. For instance:
says that traditional incandescents cannot be recycled at all, but gives a ton of places near me that offer CFL recycling.
And you only get mercury poisoning if you smash them, not if you handle them like any other bulb (I've never smashed an incandescent, never smashed a CFL, so it's not an issue).
Dunno where you've all been shopping, but all the CFL's I've bought (since about a year after they first appeared in mainstream shops, the ones before that were crap, but we're going back - what? A decade?) turn on instantly, light up the room, and don't fail any more/less than filament bulbs.
They fit in the same sockets and if you check properly, you can get the same bulb shapes too. About the only "weird" thing I've noticed is that some of them "glow" faintly for a few seconds after power-off (most noticeable in bedroom lights, for instance, which tend to plunge you into absolute darkness that you can't miss - because you're looking up - when they go off).
The CFL's are in the pound-shop stock, even at IKEA still. Can't believe they are subsidised much given that they are that cheap Europe-wide and online too. IKEA now has LED bulbs for a pound or two each, in a dozen styles and shapes (never used high-power LED's, so can't comment). Dimmable, some of them, just read the box first or search on Amazon. Just about everything you want.
If you're illuminating rooms, attics, cupboards, interiors of houses, they are absolutely fine. Outside lights are either incandescents (and are therefore used for general illumination, not safety like a light to show that someone is in, hence CFL's are appropriate) or halogen-style floodlights for safety anyway.
Guess what? I put two cheap Â£2 bulbs into my rear garden lamps and they light up to ten feet away adequately in pitch-black for the whole width of my house. You can go to the bottom of a 30 foot garden by them and not trip over anyway, and yet with them off I can photograph Jupiter and Saturn through a telescope on a clear night with no moon without any special preparations.
And, you know what?, I've paid more than Â£2 for incandescents a LOT in the past. They haven't been as cheap as people claim they were for a LONG time and that has more to do with inflation than the technology being phased out.
Again, people whining just because you take something away. I bet you could have found a million people who thought a candle "gave off better light" than these new-fangled incandescent bulbs that came along, if you were around a hundred years ago too.
In fact, I've been in my current house for 18 months. The ONLY bulbs I've changed in that time? The stupid 20W halogen G9 / G4 mini-bulbs that there are 12 of in my living room in two light fittings (and with 12 they are barely equivalent to 6 CFL's doing the same job). We have to replace those bloody light fittings soon as they are too expensive to run and just blow *all* the time.
Everything else are CFL bulbs that *I* personally bought as cheap as possible and put into my new house, or CFL's in things that we have brought with us from our previous house (4 years there, only CFL's bought when brand-new, again the only things I changed in that house were 12V "low voltage" halogens). I think there's a pound-shop mains-powered LED thing in the shed, but that's quite new.
Sorry, but I just don't get what shit you people are buying to have these bad experiences with CFL's. Cheap crap out of Ikea, stuff out of Homebase, stuff found on Amazon, stuff bought from pound-stores (or Trago Mills, if you're familiar with Cornish cheapie-shops and their 63p CFL bulbs), I've bought them all. The worst that happens is you get a slow-start brand but it's been a long time since I got lumbered with one.
Honestly, it's a load of bollocks. The only traditional incandescents in my house are in the electricity cupboard and the loft, and that's because I'm too cheap to even put a proper light fitting in there (currently a 50p lampholder plugged directly into the lighting circuit for both), let alone change the bulb, I use it so little. And the area they have to cover? The cupboard would be fully illuminated by a small 1.5v torch bulb, and the attic I actually have to bring table-lamps (with CFL's!) into to see when I'm working in there because the incandescent just doesn't cast enough ambient light to see behind all the boxes and crap up there.
Seriously, put aside your prejudices and bollocks and replace at least your crappy, horrible, pointless bulbs that don't matter with a CFL next time they blow. Chances are you won't even notice the difference six months from now (I know I just had to GO AND CHECK what's in my outside lamps even though I put the bulbs in them in the first place!).
So, presumably they don't actually rewrite the message as such, just change the way it's displayed in the web interface (through an intermediate proxy). Rewriting the message would break all those nice email verification systems, no?
So what about those people using IMAP and not GMail's web interface? Presumably, it's business as usual.
Fact is, if I don't want you to be able to know when I've loaded your images, I won't load your images unless I think they are vital. Which is why my mail-client doesn't download any images by default anyway.
I see this as a good thing - Google are protecting users who are dumb enough to use the web interface for email and rely on it, but not touching anyone who would do things properly anyway.
We have no idea what a random person working for a contractor with access to our top-secret systems managed to steal before he went on the run...
but we have to know your shoe-size, what toilet-paper you use, and what kind of porn turns you on.
A well-prioritised spying agency, there.
The other poster covered everything but also:
Not if they just asked nVidia. nVidia own that code and if they wanted to make an exception just for Valve, they can do. And given how closely they have been working together lately, and how beneficial it would be, it would be stupid not to.
It would take about ten minutes to make a "unless it's being distributed as part of a SteamOS installation" disclaimer and throw it into a licence agreement (new or old).
Nobody should really question WHAT you did. It's how you did it.
Blanket doing it to everyone, in foreign countries even, interfering with people who are of no interest but yet still collecting far more than just metadata, storing that data indefinitely for no good reason, doing it all without any sort of oversight, controls or court orders, and then acting nonchalant when it's pointed out that, technically, you've broke just about every law going including those designed FOR YOU to stop terrorism - that's what people are complaining about.
Not that you can link Joe to Fred using their phone records.
"Can an email server hold more than 1000 accounts?"
Oh, you Microsoft jokers...
Hates Steam for DRM. Recommends Origin. Hahahahaha....
And after 8 hours of downloading, downloading patches, downloading more patches and then constantly downloading over 8Gb for one game that I never got installed (freebie with an indie bundle) I gave up. Never seen such a shoddy, bitty interface and download structure (not to mention speed).
I have several big games on Origin that I've redeemed from bundles, etc. and I honestly don't care enough to install it again.
Just about every platform ever made has supplied people with a dev kit which, almost universally, contains some kind of emulator.
How the hell do you write a launch title, for instance, when the console only exists in prototype versions?
They are expensive, complex, powerful, and - many of them - are just PC-based emulation environments with some custom hardware to interface with controllers, cartridges, etc.
There's nothing new in emulating anything. People were doing it back in the days of PC-based NES development kits. Almost certainly, the devkits for the new consoles are out there now, PC-based, very hard to get hold of, very expensive, and very well protected so you can't just pirate them and give everyone a free console.
But the way the world of console gaming is heading (SteamBox etc.), it may not matter for much longer anyway.
There is nothing more to "emulation" than pretending to be another type of machine. And if you made the machine, the only advantage you have is that you know what the hardware is supposed to do. If you didn't make the machine, it's the REVERSE-ENGINEERING that's complex and difficult and takes years, not the emulation.
I don't see how giving either side of a transaction the ability to back out really fixes anything.
All that will happen is that fraud will shift to ordering products/services, and then withholding the Bitcoin that is "in escrow". Seller gets screwed and buyer gets free stuff.
There is no way to have a mutual, simultaneous exchange of goods/services/payment that doesn't allow fraud on at least one side. If there was, we'd have been using it decades ago.
All the Bitcoin "contract" does is introduce a trusted intermediary, for the most part, or limit goods exchange to those that can be sent via the Bitcoin blockchain. That doesn't solve any problem we can't already solve with such a trusted intermediary. (And who's going to be a trusted intermediary that the seller will adhere blindly to their opinion, and who would need to be able to prove reasonably that you DID or DID NOT receive the product that was sent? Answer: Nobody.)
And most of the Bitcoin exchanges that went under, it was either fraud on the part of the exchange (who presumably would require a trusted intermediary - but who, except another exchange?) or outright stupidity/negligence in their storing of their own bitcoin wallets and associated security.
Bitcoin solves a few problems and helps a lot of others. But it's far from being usable in any kind of fraud prevention like you suggest.
Don't be stupid. Don't trade with people likely to scam you. Don't expect to ever go through your life and not get scammed. If we could stop scamming just with a protocol, we'd have done it back in the dark ages.
My rule for SSD hasn't changed since their invention.
Give me an SSD within the same power-of-ten size as a hard drive for the same cost and we'll talk.
Seriously. Give me a 1Tb SSD for the cost of the cheapest XTb hard drive and I'll buy it. But if hard drives get to 10Tb in that time, guess what happens? You then have to give me a 10Tb drive for the same price.
I thought that 1Tb SSD's would be with us already. The technology is out there, it just needs scaling up. We can buy them but they are STUPID prices, sometimes more than buying, say, 10x100Gb SSD's that ALL use the same chips and boards as the 1Tb SSD.
I was hoping for this Christmas but that's not going to happen either. If you want to wait until next year, guess what, the requirements go up again.
Stop pissing about with HDD technologies and just start selling SSD's of sensible prices en masse. Every time I hear the word "platters" now it pisses me off. I was hoping to be rid of them by now, not handing them more crutches.
Sorry, but you describe a useful function. Whether it's relevant any more or not is neither here nor there. If I invent a way to make a clockwork mechanism work more efficiently, that's still an invention, still patentable. And, as Trevor Bayliss shows, still something that should be protected by patents even if it's "old hat".
The real crux of the matter is whether FAT is "obvious to one skilled in the art" which is a much, much, much more relevant and important test of patentability. Fact is, it pretty much is. If you're a filesystem designer and you're handed FAT and told to make it store long file names, FAT LFN's are pretty much one of a million ways to do them - and not even a particularly effective or perfect one.
Lacking such "inventiveness", and being just something that anyone with half a brain could come up with, AND being in a jurisdiction where software patents shouldn't be allowed by the EU courts anyway, that's what means it should be invalidated. By the same token, BTW, Trevor Bayliss would also fail. What he did wasn't invention, just quite a smart combination of two existing technologies. But at least it was a physical invention and not a way to get Linux-based vendors (e.g. TomTom) to pay Microsoft money for Windows-only inventions.
I just get a page of junk.