I mean just because you don't like the idea it doesn't mean they can't do it in a classified fashion and then make it legal years later.
The FBI now has to tap everyone because of Bitcoin.
There's something cultural going on here too.
How many of you have experienced a person (in my experience all women, but surely not exclusively) who, when the conversation turns to something they don't understand, always limited to the STEM realms, they make a stupid face, shake/flap their hands in the air, and say something like, "oh, my, tech geek talk. Beep beep, bloop bloop, blah, blah, blah, hahahahahaha"? I've heard them referred to as a "Science Goose" as that's sort of what the behavior looks like, but there's probably a better term. I've seen it parodied on TV too, so it's not a local thing.
These people seem otherwise sane, but the behavior is something they must feel is acceptable. I'm sure the psychology is straightforward, about making themselves feel better by mocking that which they do not understand, but it's got to have cultural support or more people would just think that they're rude assholes for conducting such displays. Personally, if I don't understand something I find that intriguing and an opportunity to ask questions, and I was reared in the same culture (I think...).
Hit me with your thoughts, gentle readers.
software should simply not be patentable. You can copyright it sure, but no patents
OK, now how do you get that through a corrupt Congress?
I feel like we need one of those checklists for why a random spam 'solution' won't work.
That's true, plus being published doesn't mean being truthful.
Throw in the politicization of science and its funding (i.e. if 97% of funding goes to "pro-agw" scientists, these results would be expected, or vice-versa), and it's hard to draw any real-world conclusions through popular vote of journal-published papers. Add in the asymmetric risk to the wealthiest parts of the world and the politics gets even more dubious.
Maybe we should stick to actual science and let the chips fall where they may. Phlogiston was once very popular, but so is Relativity. Theories, predictions, observation, refinement - repeat as needed until the theory and observations reach equilibrium. In the meantime, I'll try not to use my TomTom to get to the Anti-Relativity conference.
SessionRestore is reliable...
So provide a link in the file description to your website where they can download the file.
The claim was that YouTube content owners do not want their content shared. Your claim seems to be that if you are a YouTube content owner who wants their content shared (say by selecting the Creative Commons License *that YouTube provides as an option*) then you shouldn't use YouTube.
That's a separate claim that does not respond to the first one.
Another big PC build order comin' your way! Keep on winning
I'm so conflicted. Amazon buckled while Newegg funded their lawsuit with the absurd restocking fees I've paid them in the past after they've failed to deliver on time and I got the stuff overnighted for $4 from Amazon instead.
You could probably do it without going over your monthly mobile tariff.
haha, I'll dig out the C=64 to host it.
and yet some mighty big players are buying these suckers.
Few people will spend $10M without doing their homework (outside of Congress). Then again, $10M to maintain a competitive advantage over the competition is within many organizations' budgets.
Did the quantum computing age begin and (almost) nobody noticed?
TIME Magazine never covered the beginning of anything. But as the Spectrum interview says, they've sold a partnership with these organizations, and that their chips aren't big enough yet to solve their entire problems, yet, but presumably when they get there the early partners will be the market leaders because they started now.
Curiously absent are the academic institutions - they've certainly spend more than $10M (in inflation adjusted terms, at least) on computers before. To open up an entire new class of computation should justify that level of expense again. The elephant in the room being that most CS departments don't tackle big stuff anymore; they're happy to nibble at the cheap edges.
if we fail to attract the world's best and brightest
We need to attract them on a permanent basis to make any lasting improvements, not on temporary H1B's. An H1B employer can apply for a green card for its H1B employees, but if their primary motivation is their low cost, then that's not the route they'll chose to go.
(because they would often stick with paper-based solutions).
If they persist on such pigheadedness, their more nimble (and smarter) competitors will gradually put them out of business. These better companies will provide lower prices to consumers, better delivery, more efficient processes (which have positive environmental impacts) and will create more overall employment. This model has proven itself throughout every industry that didn't enjoy legal protection for the incumbents.
The US has a lot of un/un-employed STEM workers, each of which is already a drain on society if they're collecting government benefits. Getting those workers employed in native companies should be the primary goal; taking in foreign workers to make up any additional gaps above and beyond that makes total sense, but that's not the current situation (see a recent review of the numbers here).
screw official apps, I'm tired of commercials, and spam in real life, internet and television, so I've cut cable went 100% pirate and said fuck you to advertisers.
Is your relationship to the content parasitic on the rest of society?
when you stamp return to sender the post office will return your spam
Depending on the class and envelope markings you may just be wasting your time. If your goal is to increase costs for the Post Office, then it may be a valid strategy.
I believe 90% of Slashdot is having a 'Christian Scientist with appendicitis' moment.
There are two levels here. First, did Microsoft develop an app that users will like? Yep, sure, no question (as long as it lasts).
Second: are these users merely pawns in one battle of Microsoft's War on Google, or has Microsoft turned over a new leaf and embraced openness and Free Culture?
The answer to the second question gives clues to the motivations for the first. I'll give 9:1 odds that this app was only dreamed up as a negotiating piece for something Microsoft wants from Google. That's only a historical perspective - how I'd love to lose that bet, but I don't expect to.
The point is that Microsofts application isn't using publicly available API's
If they were, Google would have a stronger case. Google could provide an API with a payment method (e.g. Google Wallet micropayment). If Microsoft chose to skirt those API's to pull 'free versions' of the data, then Google's case would be very strong indeed. By being so closed, Google is hurting its revenue opportunities and hampering its control mechanisms.
If only Google's 30,000 PhD's could figure out a revenue stream that wasn't advertising. As it is, though, Google is an advertising company that has some enticing products to get users to view ads.
The difference here between Microsoft and AdBlock is that Microsoft already has an adversarial relationship with Google (e.g. shaking down its Android partners with patent litigation). One consequence of Microsoft's action, should it ever get to court, is that things like AdBlock could be collateral damage, for the reasons you cite. Absent the State mechanisms at play, this might all just be friendly competition.