665 karma · joined March 28, 2007
Of course you are entitled to do what you please. You may make your product less useful, or even eliminate it. The point is, your customers have no alternative between keep consuming and stop consuming.
To reify the point: Apple should be worried about the latter.
N.B. Moblin merged with Maemo to become MeeGo -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MeeGo
It wasn't just the Europeans. This is the story of conquerors.
It's not clear that no one is shooting, though. It's only clear that the available and very limited perspective did not capture such activity.
Eh?
> I played with my wife’s iPhone for just a few minutes before I knew I had to have an iPhone.
> People, even other homeless people, are not usually treated this way, but wild animals are.
Actually, it sounds to me like scholars doing social science. They gathering facts and analyzing behavior.
> At the root of the similarity, I think, is an assumption that Heavy is not capable of deciding what is in his best interest
Is this an assumption? Or is it a conclusion, based on evidence:
> “I just have this dream that all of a sudden something will snap, and he’ll say, I’d love to have housing,” said Amie Pospisil
> Heavy was far from alone on the streets of Times Square in the 1990s, when he began sleeping there frequently in the midst of a roiling mess of drug dealing, prostitution and crime.
> The social workers at Common Ground said they have no intention of pressuring Heavy to leave the streets.
It sounds like you are saying Heavy is capable of deciding what is in his best interest. If that is the case, then it follows that living on the streets of Times Square is in his best interest, since that is what he decided. Are you really comfortable with this conclusion?
The social workers, on the other hand, seem genuinely concerned for him, but they are hesitant to overstep the bounds of human dignity and 'pressure' him, physically or otherwise, to make more prudent decisions.
I see little justification for a critique of the social workers, here.
> Upgrades to Android 2.x will be available within 1 month to our customer on their private section for simple downloading and upgrading. Easy instructions will be provided.
Funny -- from http://enso-now.com/n/Images/Slideshow/dimensions.png
> Designed by Enso in Hong Assembled in China
Mr. Gruber should be more precise by what he means by support.
Firefox's support for Flash is not like the proposed support for H.264. There is no Flash code in the Firefox codebase, to my knowledge. There is only a generic plugin interface, and there is one dominant, proprietary Flash plugin that Mozilla has nothing to do with (in addition to other less-featured Flash plugins).
What Mr. Gruber seems to be saying is that he wants Firefox to distribute H.264 code with their browser. Either that or Firefox should rely on codecs that may or may not be installed on the underlying system.
In the former case, the analogy is fatally flawed, while if the latter is intended, it should be explicitly addressed.
In what sense?
I don't know if this will be Viacom's position, but it's one that Google should be prepared for.
Suspicion that they may be profitable? I think you have missed the point. The assertion in question is that Apple is losing money by hosting this tribute. It may be the case that Apple will instead make money. A critique regarding the philosophy of altruism seems a little premature...
Well this seems incorrect on its face. e.g. Copyright law
To my knowledge, copyright does not even address physical property. Thus it does not treat physical property the same as intellectual property.
Cognitive bias? Why restate the assertion with loaded terms?
Are you saying that it is not intellectually dishonest to equate copyright infringement with theft? Theft deprives its victim of property.
What about interest payments? What about the risk of having the debt called in, or the risk of using up all of one's credit?
The question at hand is essentially: What is the truth about China? I am not sure why you are bringing up US and UK finances and itching to make the comparison.
Sure, making China look bad might further interests in the west, but it says nothing as to the article's accuracy. It is good to note that the article may be biased against China, but I think the focus should be on the facts and analysis provided.
> What exactly is there to find calming about this smoke-screen information?
I don't think berntb was saying the article made him feel calm -- I think he was calling into question your credibility, just as you have called into question the journalist's:
>> I would have felt calmer if that assuring voice wasn't the third comment from a month old account.
Right, and a well-chosen king rules better than a representative democracy. The problem is, how do we choose a king well? Likewise, how do we guarantee the Fed is well chosen and truly independent? I submit that we can't.
> History shows that this is a much better idea then trusting either the econo-politically elite or the demos.
Care to elaborate?
Thus ignoring our entire system of checks and balances. Do you not see the danger, here?
> This angers everyone who thinks they know better than the central bank
AKA, every market participant.
> but rather that any currency should be kept far, far away from politicians.
In what sense are central bankers not politicians? They are not elected, that's for sure. However, they exercise a large amount of control over our economy and very much influence official political action. In a sense, they are very much a separate executive branch of our political system.
Yes, and bankers are generally motivated by self-interest when undertaking market actions. However, we are not talking about a market action. The question is what motivates Ben Bernanke's decisions as the head of the Fed?
Is he a selfish kleptocrat trying to enrich himself and his buddies, or is he providing prudent guidance to the country and economy as a whole? Personally, I disapprove of his role and distrust the Fed's entirely, so I cannot provide a reasonable answer here.
You really ought to check out Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel#The_theo...
Specifically, he would question your use of the word stagnate.
> Starting with version 2.3, Ophcrack also cracks NTLM hashes. This is necessary if the generation of the LM hash is disabled (this is default for Windows Vista), or if the password is longer than 14 characters (in which case the LM hash is not stored).
What is the basis for this assertion?
> and are thus susceptible to reverting to political conclusions that appear momentarily practical, or consistent with altruism
I don't understand why you are using the word reverting. Are you implying there is something wrong with political conclusions that appear practical or altruistic?
> On top of that, "libertarian" has come to means so many things that it means nothing
That people exist who pervert a term does not render the term meaningless.
> there are libertarians in favor of and against abortion, in favor of and against anarchy, in favor of and against anti-trust regulation
I agree there is no clear-cut libertarian stance on abortion, because there are several confounding factors upon which libertarianism does not opine -- e.g. when does life begin? The libertarian umbrella does indeed ostensibly cover anarchy, and it should not be a surprise that there is a spectrum of belief. If you desire a concrete libertarian platform, you can look to the Libertarian Party.
> libertarianism is a political dead end (because it's not consistent with the terrible mixed bag of present-day American values
Can you elaborate on this? By calling it a dead end, you are saying it has no future, but you are basing this on present-day values, as though these values can never change in the future. I am still unsure as to which values you refer.
> or with itself.)
Libertarianism does indeed cover a spectrum of beliefs. I don't see how that implies that it is a political dead end. Other viable political philosophies cover spectrums of belief (e.g. republicanism, conservatism, populism, liberalism, etc.)
> The computer will restart and Ophcrack will be loaded. Sit back and watch as it does all the work for your. Write down the password it gives you, remove the disc, restart the computer, and log in as if it were you own machine.
Based on the above, it should be noted that anomalies are signed, and an anomaly of +5 is bigger than an anomaly of -10, if I understand correctly.
But is there? It sounds awful to my ears. Does this not just boil down to the distinction between prescriptive vs descriptive camps?
I believe there is in fact a broad tradition of people saying "I be (going to the store)", but I would say that usage of "be" is incorrect. As well with "I'm gonna ..." or even "Ongonna ...". This type of language can certainly be used "correctly" in prose, to add color and flavor, but I would never expect to see it in a proper non-fiction context.