Well now, wait, why not? Imagine having a headset on your head that was able to simulate the large, concave screen in a way that was portable and private. Essentially a "movie theater" in your pocket. That's not outlandish and I can see IMAX'S point of view on this.
Often times the commercial software comes with something the closed source stuff doesn't: expedited support. If I'm running a hospital and my EMR system goes down, I don't have days/weeks for some neckbeard wizard to find time to solve my issue between his Stargate SG1 marathons and WoW raid. I also want paid engineers/developers/customer service people on the vendor side who will work to ensure that I am getting my organization's money's worth of support. And if your answer is "well you can just do it yourself", understand that very, very few companies want to get into the business of modifying software, especially to make it work with their own organization.
Often times it's also fairly easy to reach out to a vendor and have them revert a UI change or at least improve the issues with a change they made previously. Most vendors are in the business of keeping their customers happy -- especially those with deep pockets. Meanwhile if I go, let's say, Drupal's site and say "Hey, I hate how the system is designed so that it's really complicated to get news article submitted and reviewed differently than an editorial" without hearing how my suggestion is just "stupid" or that I just don't "get" how the software works or how the command line is an obviously superior interface to the UI.
None of the above (with the exception of companies) would have been lost if there was only RMS's open source world. Viruses would still be a thing, H1B Visas would have came into being, and managlement would have gone on mangling. Those are constructs inherent to any human-technology based system.
If your mortgage is 2x the amount than what you started I'd question if it was all from raising a family. But then I've never subscribed to the belief that starting a family means you're somehow automatically contributing more to society. Put more bluntly, not everyone needs to start a family. Sometimes getting married and not having kids is a far better decision than continuing the overpopulation of this planet.
Well sure. Hindsight is always 20/20. Although one may consider those who choose expensive professions like teachers, doctors, lawyers, etc to have made a good decision up front. And I agree, private schools aren't always the way to go. However even state schools can charge up to $40K for an education. Consider the interest, interest capitalization, and the low entry wages of college grads these days, it's not too hard to understand why some are so discouraged that they just don't even make an effort. Is it right or noble? Probably not, but then the same could be said of charging someone an obscene amount of money to do what they're told is the best way to secure a future and then be told you're a deadbeat if you can afford your bill. This is by the same generation who was easily able to afford college working part time, with massively less strenuous educational requirements, in a world where a college degree meant MUCH better job prospects and wages than is seen today. The playing field, the players, and even the game has changed...but the refs still haven't caught on yet.
Not all people feel like joining the military. There's a multitude of reasons, but it doesn't mean that your method was the best way or, more precisely, that it should be the "sacrifice" made. A highly educated society benefits everyone, so there's something to be said about sharing the burdens.
It's easy to say "grow up" when the biggest loan you had to take out was for a motorcycle. An education in the US can cost 10s-100s of thousands of dollars not including living expenses. Couple this with low earnings coming out of college and interest rates that capitalize (interest is added to principle) which occurs during forbearance, deferment, or even while you're still in school. For the vast majority of people, repayment is not so simple when the average wage for a US employee is $45,327 as of 2012 according to the National Association of Colleges and Employers. This doesn't take into account the costs of living, healthcare, health insurance, transportation, or god-forbid entertainment.
Simple: Fund what the national average for a state university education would cost. Need more -- that's up to you via public student loans. Need less? Fine, you aren't given it. Education should be completed within the standard degree timeline +1-2 years for general hardships/scheduling difficulties (where the college has too many students and you couldn't schedule a class or whatever) as a buffer. Additional time would need to be reviewed and granted on a case-by-case basis. It's simple, clean, and would make college doable for many people without crippling debt.
Let's be honest. Manuals are a concept best left in the 90s/early 2000s. With the advent of media sharing, communication platforms, like Youtube, or Skype, it would be far better to show a person what to do. No more looking through complex manuals trying to find "that one page". Textual interfaces are good for some things, but education has always been best at hands-on learning. Sitting someone down and step-by-step showing them how to do something in a video would be far more useful.
Yes and no. Most of the general public that deal with software who have any real influence are your managers/executives and I think they're the ones more or less meant in this article. My company won't lay in bed with Open Source because of the recent issues and their opinions on the lack of support. I'm not saying FOSS is bad, just why ONE company chooses not to.
I wouldn't say pistols are teh best self-defense weapon. It depends highly on the situation, environment, and other engagement parameters. For example, at home, your best weapon could be a shotgun with rounds that don't easily penetrate through drywall. It could be a semi-automatic rifle with a larger clip meant to provide extended engagement times without reloading against targets. It might be an airsoft rifle against some idiot kid.
There is no "one-size fits all" weapon. But that's not to say that weapons shouldn't be tracked to some degree. I don't mind the government knowing what I have...I'm protected by the Constitution and case precedents set by the US Supreme Court. I also fully understand that if the government wants my weapons I'm in no real tactical position to fight them off. They have superior numbers, firepower, and ability to make my life suck. I would let them take what they wanted and fight for it in court. Cliven Bundy and all his little cohorts might've thought they stared down the US government, and maybe they did. But if Uncle Sam wanted to he could've waived his hand, dropped a few bombs, and wiped out the whole ranch in under an hour. I favor a peaceful approach over an aggressive approach whenever tactical advantage isn't on my side.
Why would you think that? HIPPA very much applies to any company that handles medical data and I can assure you that HIPPA violators aren't taken lightly. It's also one of those laws that can pierce the corporate veil (IE your CEO could go to jail/be fined directly for violating HIPPA). Facebook wouldn't be so stupid as to want to get tangled on the bad side of HIPPA.
ThemMinimum specs for the OS doesn't hold anything back. 64-bit builds exist and "fancy" features of the UI can become disabled if certain hardware isn't available. Furthermore I'd say it points to some level of efficiency in that the OS can run on a low end system. Arguments can be made either way about whether the sheer slowness would be totally a fault of Windows or of the software you're running.
France has a different culture and population and economic class separations than does America. It's a people problem more than a procedural problem. Ironically we could do the insurance thing totally cashless fairly easily (government provided debit card/insurance card with a payment guarantee for covered procedures).
You're very much correct about the UK. However France requires a copay and I don't disagree with that. Truly free healthcare leads people to go to the ER for stuff their Primary Care Physician should be handling (as the uninsured do now). This presents the ER staff with a large triage issue and it affects emergency care quality. A reasonable fee would discourage this and allow for the creation of additional funding that could be applicable to public funded medical research. Stipulations on that research could be things such as private companies using the research must not patent protect any application of that research (so a drug company using public money couldn't patent and restrict access to a new drug that, say, cures cancer).
Medical research is rather expensive and pure taxation wouldn't be enough. I'd love to see the bulk of medical research moved into the public domain vs companies discovering a cure and making a pill that has to be taken forever (at great cost) instead of using the version of the pill which cures in one round of treatment.
Let's face it, Apple doesn't exist without America. Their designers live here, their product engineers live here, their top management lives here. It shouldn't matter that a shell company based out of Ireland is what "holds" Apple assets. If a company does business in the US (selling to US consumers) it should be required to submit the same financial paperwork as any other registered American company. It should then be taxed accordingly. If they don't like they're free to get out of our country and never be allowed to sell a single product unless they accept a 400% tariff which gives true blue American companies an edge within one of the world's most powerful, prosperous, consumer driven market. They're free to sell to Cuba anytime they want, good luck selling your overpriced junk to a bunch of poor people.
Let's clarify this. Universal Coverage doesn't mean "free" healthcare. It would work the same way a private insurance plan works now, except it's the government running the program and doing so without charging money to pay for CEO private jets, bonuses, and lobbying efforts. No one I know has a problem with paying copays, deductibles, or coinsurances, it's the massive premiums (of which a not-insignificant chunk of which goes to paying silly things while insurance companies actively work to deny claims for any small reason they can find).
The problem being solved isn't speed. Most of the scripting languages of yesteryear were very limited or restricted to specific platforms. The problem being solved is cross-platform development.
Do you feel you're exempt from having to pay for the work others have done? We can get real philosophical and shit about whether copying data is tantamount to stealing it, but there certainly can't be any argument to the point that if you don't purchase a DVD or download you're not paying the people who are asking to be paid for their work. People like you are why companies feel the need for restrictive DRM. You feel the product is overpriced so you won't pay for it, but that doesn't mean you should than be able to partake in that product's benefits, right? I think this is the biggest problem for software devs like myself who feel that our work entitles us to payment OR you don't have a right to use my software. I don't think that's unfair.
Slashdot Mirror
Well now, wait, why not? Imagine having a headset on your head that was able to simulate the large, concave screen in a way that was portable and private. Essentially a "movie theater" in your pocket. That's not outlandish and I can see IMAX'S point of view on this.
Often times the commercial software comes with something the closed source stuff doesn't: expedited support. If I'm running a hospital and my EMR system goes down, I don't have days/weeks for some neckbeard wizard to find time to solve my issue between his Stargate SG1 marathons and WoW raid. I also want paid engineers/developers/customer service people on the vendor side who will work to ensure that I am getting my organization's money's worth of support. And if your answer is "well you can just do it yourself", understand that very, very few companies want to get into the business of modifying software, especially to make it work with their own organization.
Often times it's also fairly easy to reach out to a vendor and have them revert a UI change or at least improve the issues with a change they made previously. Most vendors are in the business of keeping their customers happy -- especially those with deep pockets. Meanwhile if I go, let's say, Drupal's site and say "Hey, I hate how the system is designed so that it's really complicated to get news article submitted and reviewed differently than an editorial" without hearing how my suggestion is just "stupid" or that I just don't "get" how the software works or how the command line is an obviously superior interface to the UI.
None of the above (with the exception of companies) would have been lost if there was only RMS's open source world. Viruses would still be a thing, H1B Visas would have came into being, and managlement would have gone on mangling. Those are constructs inherent to any human-technology based system.
If your mortgage is 2x the amount than what you started I'd question if it was all from raising a family. But then I've never subscribed to the belief that starting a family means you're somehow automatically contributing more to society. Put more bluntly, not everyone needs to start a family. Sometimes getting married and not having kids is a far better decision than continuing the overpopulation of this planet.
Well sure. Hindsight is always 20/20. Although one may consider those who choose expensive professions like teachers, doctors, lawyers, etc to have made a good decision up front. And I agree, private schools aren't always the way to go. However even state schools can charge up to $40K for an education. Consider the interest, interest capitalization, and the low entry wages of college grads these days, it's not too hard to understand why some are so discouraged that they just don't even make an effort. Is it right or noble? Probably not, but then the same could be said of charging someone an obscene amount of money to do what they're told is the best way to secure a future and then be told you're a deadbeat if you can afford your bill. This is by the same generation who was easily able to afford college working part time, with massively less strenuous educational requirements, in a world where a college degree meant MUCH better job prospects and wages than is seen today. The playing field, the players, and even the game has changed...but the refs still haven't caught on yet.
Not all people feel like joining the military. There's a multitude of reasons, but it doesn't mean that your method was the best way or, more precisely, that it should be the "sacrifice" made. A highly educated society benefits everyone, so there's something to be said about sharing the burdens.
It's easy to say "grow up" when the biggest loan you had to take out was for a motorcycle. An education in the US can cost 10s-100s of thousands of dollars not including living expenses. Couple this with low earnings coming out of college and interest rates that capitalize (interest is added to principle) which occurs during forbearance, deferment, or even while you're still in school. For the vast majority of people, repayment is not so simple when the average wage for a US employee is $45,327 as of 2012 according to the National Association of Colleges and Employers. This doesn't take into account the costs of living, healthcare, health insurance, transportation, or god-forbid entertainment.
Simple: Fund what the national average for a state university education would cost. Need more -- that's up to you via public student loans. Need less? Fine, you aren't given it. Education should be completed within the standard degree timeline +1-2 years for general hardships/scheduling difficulties (where the college has too many students and you couldn't schedule a class or whatever) as a buffer. Additional time would need to be reviewed and granted on a case-by-case basis. It's simple, clean, and would make college doable for many people without crippling debt.
Do I did this correctly?
Except those defined by Adblock as being "acceptable" (ie, they get paid).
Let's be honest. Manuals are a concept best left in the 90s/early 2000s. With the advent of media sharing, communication platforms, like Youtube, or Skype, it would be far better to show a person what to do. No more looking through complex manuals trying to find "that one page". Textual interfaces are good for some things, but education has always been best at hands-on learning. Sitting someone down and step-by-step showing them how to do something in a video would be far more useful.
Yes and no. Most of the general public that deal with software who have any real influence are your managers/executives and I think they're the ones more or less meant in this article. My company won't lay in bed with Open Source because of the recent issues and their opinions on the lack of support. I'm not saying FOSS is bad, just why ONE company chooses not to.
I wouldn't say pistols are teh best self-defense weapon. It depends highly on the situation, environment, and other engagement parameters. For example, at home, your best weapon could be a shotgun with rounds that don't easily penetrate through drywall. It could be a semi-automatic rifle with a larger clip meant to provide extended engagement times without reloading against targets. It might be an airsoft rifle against some idiot kid.
There is no "one-size fits all" weapon. But that's not to say that weapons shouldn't be tracked to some degree. I don't mind the government knowing what I have...I'm protected by the Constitution and case precedents set by the US Supreme Court. I also fully understand that if the government wants my weapons I'm in no real tactical position to fight them off. They have superior numbers, firepower, and ability to make my life suck. I would let them take what they wanted and fight for it in court. Cliven Bundy and all his little cohorts might've thought they stared down the US government, and maybe they did. But if Uncle Sam wanted to he could've waived his hand, dropped a few bombs, and wiped out the whole ranch in under an hour. I favor a peaceful approach over an aggressive approach whenever tactical advantage isn't on my side.
Why would you think that? HIPPA very much applies to any company that handles medical data and I can assure you that HIPPA violators aren't taken lightly. It's also one of those laws that can pierce the corporate veil (IE your CEO could go to jail/be fined directly for violating HIPPA). Facebook wouldn't be so stupid as to want to get tangled on the bad side of HIPPA.
ThemMinimum specs for the OS doesn't hold anything back. 64-bit builds exist and "fancy" features of the UI can become disabled if certain hardware isn't available. Furthermore I'd say it points to some level of efficiency in that the OS can run on a low end system. Arguments can be made either way about whether the sheer slowness would be totally a fault of Windows or of the software you're running.
France has a different culture and population and economic class separations than does America. It's a people problem more than a procedural problem. Ironically we could do the insurance thing totally cashless fairly easily (government provided debit card/insurance card with a payment guarantee for covered procedures).
You're very much correct about the UK. However France requires a copay and I don't disagree with that. Truly free healthcare leads people to go to the ER for stuff their Primary Care Physician should be handling (as the uninsured do now). This presents the ER staff with a large triage issue and it affects emergency care quality. A reasonable fee would discourage this and allow for the creation of additional funding that could be applicable to public funded medical research. Stipulations on that research could be things such as private companies using the research must not patent protect any application of that research (so a drug company using public money couldn't patent and restrict access to a new drug that, say, cures cancer).
Medical research is rather expensive and pure taxation wouldn't be enough. I'd love to see the bulk of medical research moved into the public domain vs companies discovering a cure and making a pill that has to be taken forever (at great cost) instead of using the version of the pill which cures in one round of treatment.
Let's face it, Apple doesn't exist without America. Their designers live here, their product engineers live here, their top management lives here. It shouldn't matter that a shell company based out of Ireland is what "holds" Apple assets. If a company does business in the US (selling to US consumers) it should be required to submit the same financial paperwork as any other registered American company. It should then be taxed accordingly. If they don't like they're free to get out of our country and never be allowed to sell a single product unless they accept a 400% tariff which gives true blue American companies an edge within one of the world's most powerful, prosperous, consumer driven market. They're free to sell to Cuba anytime they want, good luck selling your overpriced junk to a bunch of poor people.
> all other health costs.
Let's clarify this. Universal Coverage doesn't mean "free" healthcare. It would work the same way a private insurance plan works now, except it's the government running the program and doing so without charging money to pay for CEO private jets, bonuses, and lobbying efforts. No one I know has a problem with paying copays, deductibles, or coinsurances, it's the massive premiums (of which a not-insignificant chunk of which goes to paying silly things while insurance companies actively work to deny claims for any small reason they can find).
And this has what to do with the topic?
"The problem is what's the point of Java?"
The problem being solved isn't speed. Most of the scripting languages of yesteryear were very limited or restricted to specific platforms. The problem being solved is cross-platform development.
Do you feel you're exempt from having to pay for the work others have done? We can get real philosophical and shit about whether copying data is tantamount to stealing it, but there certainly can't be any argument to the point that if you don't purchase a DVD or download you're not paying the people who are asking to be paid for their work. People like you are why companies feel the need for restrictive DRM. You feel the product is overpriced so you won't pay for it, but that doesn't mean you should than be able to partake in that product's benefits, right? I think this is the biggest problem for software devs like myself who feel that our work entitles us to payment OR you don't have a right to use my software. I don't think that's unfair.
An unregulated business practice designed to funnel jobs and monies overseas? Say it ain't so, George, say it ain't so!
Why is this any different to you than a search warrant against your house?
Now we can have loads of girls thinking that they're special goddesses instead of mere mortal princesses. How trite.