If you're hiring someone, and he says "let me call my lawyer", don't you get a knot in your stomach, like maybe this guy likes to sue a lot? Who calls their lawyer over an ordinary job contract (I've actually never signed a job contract; I've just been given confirmation of what I'll receive in return for my work)? Maybe he's planning on suing this company once he's hired? Maybe he's planning on suing this company for not hiring him? Maybe he's planning to slip and fall in the meeting room?
That's as may be, but if this sort of legalese becomes the norm, then a recruit's defense against that legalese should become the norm as well. Put another way, if you as an employer are going to harass me with contracts that are too unwieldy for me to reasonably be expected to read and understand in a short amount of time, then you should expect me to counter with lawyers who will look out for my best interests.
Of course, in the end, it's still the lawyers who come out ahead in all of this mess. I'm imagining law firms waiting in their offices, anticipating the oncoming rush of employees requesting their skills in order to review the very employment contracts the law firms were asked to produce in the first place.
I read the article someone put together which was supposed to be based on a conversation with FCPX managers. Most of the issues were stated to either be non-issues or can be addressed via software/hardware add-ons or will be addressed in a future FCPX update. Great.
But they also stated they have no plans to allow for importing of old FCP projects.
That's not de-bloating. That's hosing over your clients. Yes, of course the old software still works (bugs aside) so yes you can still open those projects. But you also expect them to consider all the new fancies in FCPX? As compelling reasons to upgrade? Now they have to deal with swapping between two software packages with different interfaces and workflows? Importing of old projects should have been planned from the get-go. I'm not even talking the ability to re-save in the old format. Force an all out conversion if you must. But essentially requiring someone to keep an older revision of your software around in case they need to revisit old data just stinks.
The exclusive legal right, given to an originator or an assignee to print, publish, perform, film, or record literary, artistic, or musical material, and to authorize others to do the same.
My emphasis there on the latter part. Yes, distributors are the ones who mechanically produce copies but it's the original creator who is granted copyright and therefore the right to grant others the right to copy. It's not the right to copy it's the right to control who copies.
Rarely does someone carry significant sums of money in their wallet, where by "significant" I mean in relation to their total net worth. If I had to guess, $500k was probably a very significant amount in this case by the same definition. So the risk is typically smaller in the general use case.
No one walks into a store to buy a wallet with the expectation that their money will be particularly secure inside of it. On the other hand, while some here are clearly not surprised about the lack of security surrounding BTC ownership, when you visit the websites promoting BTC usage, there's no mention of whether one's BTC information is particularly secure or not. In fact, one is given the impression (implied, not stated) that BTC is actually pretty secure by default.
Furthermore, several people have outlined steps one can take (or that could be undertaken by an app by default) to make BTC sums more secure on your system, but they aren't exactly common knowledge. And even if they are common knowledge on a website like this, again I would point to the promotional websites that exist for BTC usage which are seemingly trying to attract the interest of the average purchaser out there who, I guarantee, does not typically know about the security methods being espoused here. Yet every single one of them is aware of how to put their money in a bank where it is "safe".
So even if you take for granted that BitCoins are more secure than physical dollars, for the average consumer that BTC promoters are trying to promote to, they have no clue how to secure their BitCoins effectively. For them, conventional currencies are still superior in that regard.
If you're going to consider BTC security, and desire to have BitCoins widely accepted, you have to consider it from a practical viewpoint, assuming your user knows very little about the technology involved.
They can't tell the difference between a legal rip and an illegally shared rip though.
I own plenty of CDs from before I started purchasing digitally from iTunes on a regular basis. Plus a few I picked up because there weren't versions available online. In any event, the rips I made could easily be copied over to someone else or even re-ripped from the same CD (not that I would do that). Digitally identical. So when they get uploaded, how the hell would the RIAA know whether mine was illegally obtained or not? If they attempted to go after folks purely on this basis, they would have so many suits overturned they would begin getting laughed out of court by the judges.
Don't conflate interaction with the iCloud matching service with interaction with P2P services. With P2P, RIAA presumes you do not have the right to provide that copy. With iCloud matching, it's presumed that you do.
This. It amazes me that people still think that registering folks for access to what are considered dangerous tools or even worse, banning them altogether, is some sort of panacea that will magically protect everyone from the presumed harmful effects. If I ban guns, then only criminals will have guns. If I ban "hacker tools" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean), then only criminals will have hacker tools. If I ban bad car analogies, well, you get the picture.
It comes down to laziness on the part of legislators and prosecutors. Rather than stipulating the sorts of actions which are criminal, which can become bogged down in specific terminology, it's much easier to just say that in order to have the typical tools required to perform the act in the first place, you must register. Not registering but still having the tools then becomes a criminal offense, and that's ever so much tidier and easier to prosecute.
We need to force legislators to define what constitutes a criminal act properly, rather than letting them get away with laziness.
He's referring the Apple Developer program. For $99/yr you get access to their provisioning portal where you can grab a certificate and provisioning profile that allows you to develop for the iPhone. There are a LOT of things you can do with your iPhone apps, on an iPhone, that would never see the light of day in the app store, but can still be performed in an iPhone app on a non-jailbroken iPhone.
Of course, that also means that to take advantage of any such apps, you would need the source code in order to be able to get it signed and installed on your iPhone. Not so big a deal for open source software. More of an issue for some closed source app normally installed only on jailbroken iPhones.
I suspect one concern Apple might have is what effect attempting to defend iOS developers might have. If they stay out of it, patent trolls like Lodsys will obviously continue to go after potentially infringing small fries in the hopes of browbeating them into settling. But if they enter the fray, it might set a precedent which could pull them into other infringement cases that they might feel less comfortable fighting. At some point they're going to have to draw a line and say either that they will pick and choose which infringement cases they will help defend or try to delineate some rules to be able to predict such situations. Either way has its drawbacks.
And of course, they may still opt out of defending. Sure, they wrote a strongly worded letter, but they still have yet to actually put a lawyer in a courtroom or at a negotiating table, on behalf of an unaffiliated iOS developer.
The bacteria had been tested--as it turns out in a careless and very unscientific mannner--by scientists working for the biotech industry and was believed to be safe for the environment. Fortunately a team of independent scientists, headed by Dr. Elaine Ingham of Oregon State University, decided to run their own tests on the gene-altered Klebsiella planticola.
So the company which developed the GMO product and had plans to actually produce and sell it, had done very slipshod testing. It was only due to an independent lab that decided to run their own tests that the error was caught.
Yes, through preferential selection we have been practicing GMO for millenia. And yes, there's probably a good safe way to accelerate that process. But sometimes I think we play a little fast and loose with our food supply.
That seems like it's not really any protection at all. Most Macs are likely single user setups anyway. Sometimes, sure, you'll have some other users on the machine, but most of them are likely just tied to one user.
To that one user, their files are the critical component of the machine. If they bought the machine, they have the reinstall discs for the OS, plus those of any upgrades. Annoying? You betcha. But if they haven't been backing up their files (shame on them) then having to reinstall the OS is the LEAST of their worries.
And this of course goes for Windows and Linux installs as well. And really, even in a multi-user/single-machine scenario, while the damage is limited, it is still potentially devastating for the user involved. And again, for many (most?) installs, there's only one user that matters anyway.
Ordinarily I would say this is because when we sit down for entertainment, we expect a minimum rate of feedback per unit time. Things don't necessarily have to constantly be happening, but things have to happen fast enough. And even when things aren't happening for long stretches, that's why we have color commentary.
For chess, unless you have timers set short enough to speed matches up, there's not going to be that rate of feedback most folks want. Yes, some would still find it entertaining, but you have to achieve a critical mass before it becomes popular enough to warrant significant attention.
Also, there's a lot more to be gained from watching these esports than what you would get from a summation of the win results. The "box score" might say you had a 1.7:1 kill ratio, with a much higher resource capture rate, but it doesn't show how you managed it. That brilliant move in the middle game of your chess match, the one that blew open your opponent's defense? I'm going to see that in the move summary. They even have a notation for particularly unexpected moves. In essence, I can capture the bulk of the match, not only the what but the how, by looking at the equivalent of the "box score".
Nemec was brought in as a regular cast member (as Quinn) solely to hold down the 'intellectual' role while Michael Shanks was sitting out. I preferred Shanks' Jackson to Nemec's Quinn but I have mixed feelings about Shanks sitting out season 6. I understand wanting to make a point if you believe your character is underutilized, but to be honest I felt that wasn't the case especially at the end of season 5 leading up to 6.
Your logic is flawed. You are incorrectly assuming that because something better becomes available what you are currently using becomes obsolete.
For someone purchasing a new iPhone, yes, it would not make sense to purchase anything other than the most recent revision. But existing owners of models of iPhone prior to iPhone 4 can go on using their iPhone 3GS, 3G, original iPhone, just as they always have. The iPhone, like all current (and past) smart phones, was not sold on the premise that hardware upgrades would be available for it. Like all current (and past) smart phones, it makes use of largely non-upgradeable hardware parts that are part of the original purchasing decision. Some parts are upgradeable in some smart phones (i.e. memory cards) but that's the extent of it usually. And you knew that going in.
And for the most part Apple has been pretty generous with their iOS updates. When features could be made available based on the existing hardware for a given iPhone generation, they were.
But even with all of the snazzy capabilities of the iPhone 4 vs the original iPhone, original iPhones still make phone calls, can still run the apps installed, can still access the internet and still have better usability than the vast majority of current (and past) smart phones.
It may very well be that some folks within the company really are trying to be helpful and let you know that, hey, there's something newer and better available.
But in reality, it's just marketing. Advertising. Vista was bad enough when it was released that I think folks wouldn't have wanted to switch regardless of whether they were on Windows 98, much less XP. The situation was exacerbated when the uptake of Windows 7 was still slowed by folks hesitating from moving away from Windows XP.
In fact, it seems similar to how they've had to try to push people away from older version of Internet Explorer. It seems Microsoft is fighting to keep their new offerings relevant. For the most part, I think they're improving. IE is looking much improved over just the last five years. Windows 7 is close to erasing the tragedy of Vista but could perhaps still use some help.
As for Office... well, I think the best thing they could do for Office would actually be to start trimming it down rather than trying to add new features. It's better than it used to be but it seems like they're starting to run into a wall where they've reached the limit of real useful new features they can add and are now trying to just spin straw into gold with smaller features and tweaks and UI changes.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're hiring someone, and he says "let me call my lawyer", don't you get a knot in your stomach, like maybe this guy likes to sue a lot? Who calls their lawyer over an ordinary job contract (I've actually never signed a job contract; I've just been given confirmation of what I'll receive in return for my work)? Maybe he's planning on suing this company once he's hired? Maybe he's planning on suing this company for not hiring him? Maybe he's planning to slip and fall in the meeting room?
That's as may be, but if this sort of legalese becomes the norm, then a recruit's defense against that legalese should become the norm as well. Put another way, if you as an employer are going to harass me with contracts that are too unwieldy for me to reasonably be expected to read and understand in a short amount of time, then you should expect me to counter with lawyers who will look out for my best interests.
Of course, in the end, it's still the lawyers who come out ahead in all of this mess. I'm imagining law firms waiting in their offices, anticipating the oncoming rush of employees requesting their skills in order to review the very employment contracts the law firms were asked to produce in the first place.
I read the article someone put together which was supposed to be based on a conversation with FCPX managers. Most of the issues were stated to either be non-issues or can be addressed via software/hardware add-ons or will be addressed in a future FCPX update. Great.
But they also stated they have no plans to allow for importing of old FCP projects.
That's not de-bloating. That's hosing over your clients. Yes, of course the old software still works (bugs aside) so yes you can still open those projects. But you also expect them to consider all the new fancies in FCPX? As compelling reasons to upgrade? Now they have to deal with swapping between two software packages with different interfaces and workflows? Importing of old projects should have been planned from the get-go. I'm not even talking the ability to re-save in the old format. Force an all out conversion if you must. But essentially requiring someone to keep an older revision of your software around in case they need to revisit old data just stinks.
Quick definition check for copyright turns up:
The exclusive legal right, given to an originator or an assignee to print, publish, perform, film, or record literary, artistic, or musical material, and to authorize others to do the same.
My emphasis there on the latter part. Yes, distributors are the ones who mechanically produce copies but it's the original creator who is granted copyright and therefore the right to grant others the right to copy. It's not the right to copy it's the right to control who copies.
Rarely does someone carry significant sums of money in their wallet, where by "significant" I mean in relation to their total net worth. If I had to guess, $500k was probably a very significant amount in this case by the same definition. So the risk is typically smaller in the general use case.
No one walks into a store to buy a wallet with the expectation that their money will be particularly secure inside of it. On the other hand, while some here are clearly not surprised about the lack of security surrounding BTC ownership, when you visit the websites promoting BTC usage, there's no mention of whether one's BTC information is particularly secure or not. In fact, one is given the impression (implied, not stated) that BTC is actually pretty secure by default.
Furthermore, several people have outlined steps one can take (or that could be undertaken by an app by default) to make BTC sums more secure on your system, but they aren't exactly common knowledge. And even if they are common knowledge on a website like this, again I would point to the promotional websites that exist for BTC usage which are seemingly trying to attract the interest of the average purchaser out there who, I guarantee, does not typically know about the security methods being espoused here. Yet every single one of them is aware of how to put their money in a bank where it is "safe".
So even if you take for granted that BitCoins are more secure than physical dollars, for the average consumer that BTC promoters are trying to promote to, they have no clue how to secure their BitCoins effectively. For them, conventional currencies are still superior in that regard.
If you're going to consider BTC security, and desire to have BitCoins widely accepted, you have to consider it from a practical viewpoint, assuming your user knows very little about the technology involved.
They can't tell the difference between a legal rip and an illegally shared rip though.
I own plenty of CDs from before I started purchasing digitally from iTunes on a regular basis. Plus a few I picked up because there weren't versions available online. In any event, the rips I made could easily be copied over to someone else or even re-ripped from the same CD (not that I would do that). Digitally identical. So when they get uploaded, how the hell would the RIAA know whether mine was illegally obtained or not? If they attempted to go after folks purely on this basis, they would have so many suits overturned they would begin getting laughed out of court by the judges.
Don't conflate interaction with the iCloud matching service with interaction with P2P services. With P2P, RIAA presumes you do not have the right to provide that copy. With iCloud matching, it's presumed that you do.
This. It amazes me that people still think that registering folks for access to what are considered dangerous tools or even worse, banning them altogether, is some sort of panacea that will magically protect everyone from the presumed harmful effects. If I ban guns, then only criminals will have guns. If I ban "hacker tools" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean), then only criminals will have hacker tools. If I ban bad car analogies, well, you get the picture.
It comes down to laziness on the part of legislators and prosecutors. Rather than stipulating the sorts of actions which are criminal, which can become bogged down in specific terminology, it's much easier to just say that in order to have the typical tools required to perform the act in the first place, you must register. Not registering but still having the tools then becomes a criminal offense, and that's ever so much tidier and easier to prosecute.
We need to force legislators to define what constitutes a criminal act properly, rather than letting them get away with laziness.
Sure it makes sense:
-In a dread inspiring voice: The Sony Solution-
Dislike someone? Hack them to death!
He's referring the Apple Developer program. For $99/yr you get access to their provisioning portal where you can grab a certificate and provisioning profile that allows you to develop for the iPhone. There are a LOT of things you can do with your iPhone apps, on an iPhone, that would never see the light of day in the app store, but can still be performed in an iPhone app on a non-jailbroken iPhone.
Of course, that also means that to take advantage of any such apps, you would need the source code in order to be able to get it signed and installed on your iPhone. Not so big a deal for open source software. More of an issue for some closed source app normally installed only on jailbroken iPhones.
I believe he said in the keynote it would be in DRM-free AAC. Yes, still AAC, but NOT with DRM.
I suspect one concern Apple might have is what effect attempting to defend iOS developers might have. If they stay out of it, patent trolls like Lodsys will obviously continue to go after potentially infringing small fries in the hopes of browbeating them into settling. But if they enter the fray, it might set a precedent which could pull them into other infringement cases that they might feel less comfortable fighting. At some point they're going to have to draw a line and say either that they will pick and choose which infringement cases they will help defend or try to delineate some rules to be able to predict such situations. Either way has its drawbacks.
And of course, they may still opt out of defending. Sure, they wrote a strongly worded letter, but they still have yet to actually put a lawyer in a courtroom or at a negotiating table, on behalf of an unaffiliated iOS developer.
From the quoted text:
So the company which developed the GMO product and had plans to actually produce and sell it, had done very slipshod testing. It was only due to an independent lab that decided to run their own tests that the error was caught.
This is a good reason to think twice about fast tracking genetic modification and testing things in the wild
Yes, through preferential selection we have been practicing GMO for millenia. And yes, there's probably a good safe way to accelerate that process. But sometimes I think we play a little fast and loose with our food supply.
So, killing animals for food is 'going off the deep end'?
Oh come on, who eats a goat?
Chupacabra
The entirety of it's existence.
That seems like it's not really any protection at all. Most Macs are likely single user setups anyway. Sometimes, sure, you'll have some other users on the machine, but most of them are likely just tied to one user.
To that one user, their files are the critical component of the machine. If they bought the machine, they have the reinstall discs for the OS, plus those of any upgrades. Annoying? You betcha. But if they haven't been backing up their files (shame on them) then having to reinstall the OS is the LEAST of their worries.
And this of course goes for Windows and Linux installs as well. And really, even in a multi-user/single-machine scenario, while the damage is limited, it is still potentially devastating for the user involved. And again, for many (most?) installs, there's only one user that matters anyway.
What happens in Soviet Russia?
Yeah, pouring the astroglide on the linoleum and locking a cat in with the German Shepherd *IS* pretty amusing...
That's what you were talking about right?
I hear they need bodies to fight the flooding along the Mississippi. No no... not labor... just the bodies...
Ordinarily I would say this is because when we sit down for entertainment, we expect a minimum rate of feedback per unit time. Things don't necessarily have to constantly be happening, but things have to happen fast enough. And even when things aren't happening for long stretches, that's why we have color commentary.
For chess, unless you have timers set short enough to speed matches up, there's not going to be that rate of feedback most folks want. Yes, some would still find it entertaining, but you have to achieve a critical mass before it becomes popular enough to warrant significant attention.
Also, there's a lot more to be gained from watching these esports than what you would get from a summation of the win results. The "box score" might say you had a 1.7:1 kill ratio, with a much higher resource capture rate, but it doesn't show how you managed it. That brilliant move in the middle game of your chess match, the one that blew open your opponent's defense? I'm going to see that in the move summary. They even have a notation for particularly unexpected moves. In essence, I can capture the bulk of the match, not only the what but the how, by looking at the equivalent of the "box score".
Nemec was brought in as a regular cast member (as Quinn) solely to hold down the 'intellectual' role while Michael Shanks was sitting out. I preferred Shanks' Jackson to Nemec's Quinn but I have mixed feelings about Shanks sitting out season 6. I understand wanting to make a point if you believe your character is underutilized, but to be honest I felt that wasn't the case especially at the end of season 5 leading up to 6.
But that versus my wife's head, it'll be a no brainer.
I don't think I need to add anything here.
Your logic is flawed. You are incorrectly assuming that because something better becomes available what you are currently using becomes obsolete.
For someone purchasing a new iPhone, yes, it would not make sense to purchase anything other than the most recent revision. But existing owners of models of iPhone prior to iPhone 4 can go on using their iPhone 3GS, 3G, original iPhone, just as they always have. The iPhone, like all current (and past) smart phones, was not sold on the premise that hardware upgrades would be available for it. Like all current (and past) smart phones, it makes use of largely non-upgradeable hardware parts that are part of the original purchasing decision. Some parts are upgradeable in some smart phones (i.e. memory cards) but that's the extent of it usually. And you knew that going in.
And for the most part Apple has been pretty generous with their iOS updates. When features could be made available based on the existing hardware for a given iPhone generation, they were.
But even with all of the snazzy capabilities of the iPhone 4 vs the original iPhone, original iPhones still make phone calls, can still run the apps installed, can still access the internet and still have better usability than the vast majority of current (and past) smart phones.
Do not confuse envy with obsolescence.
You know, you *could* get rid of the bodies at least. Shouldn't just leave them all over the lawn like that. What will the neighbors think?
As opposed to the naturally occuring giant star goats?
It may very well be that some folks within the company really are trying to be helpful and let you know that, hey, there's something newer and better available.
But in reality, it's just marketing. Advertising. Vista was bad enough when it was released that I think folks wouldn't have wanted to switch regardless of whether they were on Windows 98, much less XP. The situation was exacerbated when the uptake of Windows 7 was still slowed by folks hesitating from moving away from Windows XP.
In fact, it seems similar to how they've had to try to push people away from older version of Internet Explorer. It seems Microsoft is fighting to keep their new offerings relevant. For the most part, I think they're improving. IE is looking much improved over just the last five years. Windows 7 is close to erasing the tragedy of Vista but could perhaps still use some help.
As for Office... well, I think the best thing they could do for Office would actually be to start trimming it down rather than trying to add new features. It's better than it used to be but it seems like they're starting to run into a wall where they've reached the limit of real useful new features they can add and are now trying to just spin straw into gold with smaller features and tweaks and UI changes.