If you will celebrate when IE usage drops below 1% as in your previous post, but you can't use it yourself, only a few situations suggest themselves.
1) You have to make HTML work in many browsers 2) You're anti-Microsoft but have stopped caring why 3) Going for +5 funny moderation but not actually contributing anything
Whatever it is, you're not helping, so for all of the people who think like you:
When IE 6 and 7 are no longer around, life will be a lot easier for web developers. Even with things like jQuery, you can't do all the things you might like to do if you expect IE6/7 visitors.
If you don't use it, but you do visit websites, you should be happy that IE6 is going away, and support IE9 as the lesser of 4 evils, if only because it makes better things possible. Without IE6, or if it was quickly replaced with IE7, the web would be a far more pleasant place. IF nothing else, little time would be spent on trying to figure out why your website is written to the standard, but sucks in the most used browser, leaving more time for actual work.
We should celebrate IE9, even if we don't want to.
That's not actually true. Most of the big distributors vary the contract per film. They also have variable lengths and variable percentages. An expected blockbuster may have 3 weeks where 100% of the ticket goes to the distributor, and after that the house gets to keep a percentage. A less anticipated movie may have a more equitable split, or only a day or two at a high percentage.
If the audience drops off quickly while in that initial distibution agreement, you can bet the movie will be replaced by something that makes the house something. Which is why some movies only play for a few days, even though some people are still going. If the audience is going strong, the house can keep showing it and make a percentage off tickets as well as concessions.
Typically, indie films or other small films will get shown just because the percentage is higher. Fewer people mean fewer concessions, but it evens out being able to keep more of the ticket.
If anything, theaters should be charging more to cover their initial costs. But at 100%, raising the ticket prices won't do anything for the theater, and the distributor may have a minimum they can't go under (must be at least your normal ticket price).
Plus, theaters probably want to be on the commodity scale, you know what you're going to pay for. Larger communities may have the ability to split pricing, but most theaters want to remain predictable so people make plans without having to check the price first. Wanna go see the new movie? Sure, wait, how much will it be? They don't want you to have that conversation to get in the way of a potential sale unless they have a large enough population that it doesn't matter.
outright annoyed by most of the "improvements" to Windows Explorer.
When you load a folder in XP, it lists the subdirectories (which are just directory entries like files). I got annoyed that it would insist on showing the folder view on the right side, which meant it had to list the files in each subdirectory to see if it had subdirectories for itself, to show or hide the plus sign to expand it. And of course it has to load the icons for each file, and especially opening executables to get the icon resource.
I got really irritated when Vista added the "feature" of customizing each folder's appearance. Now it has to see if there is a desktop.ini file in each folder, open it, parse it, and load the relevant icons. And it tries to determine the folder type by seeing what files you have in there. So it can choose which columns to display, many of which are file metadata. So each file has to be opened and parsed for things like length (videos), EXIF data (images), and other junk I don't need.
So now you click a folder, it's empty, and the files and folders appear one by one, as they are parsed and the icons are available. It's very slow, although 7 is much smoother than Vista, but it still has the same deficiencies.
I discarded the idea of writing my own file explorer when I figured out how to tame XP, but I've gone back to it recently. The drag and drop and other integrations are a bit annoying to deal with, but I think I'll finish soon.
And yes, I'm aware of and probably have tried your favorite file manager, and rejected it because it is not both keyboard friendly and mouse friendly - I will use the fastest interface I can, and having to type when I can click, or click when I can use a shortcut really drives me bonkers. I'd much rather type-ahead and wait for explorer to catch up than waste time telling it what to do.
I think you forgot: Most people consider the computer an appliance. They might understand the concept of a patch, but replacing the operating system completely is not something they would even think of.
And as an appliance, if it is still working there's no need to replace it. In fact, most people I know will run a microwave, stove, toaster, light bulb, anything well after it shows signs of degrading, because it still works. If vendors want us to buy, they will have to work on this perception It's not the razor, we need to understand, it's the razor blade. And that will never work, not now.
It was built with XP in mind, why would it work with anything else? Combine that with several years of "I update to Vista and nothing would work right" and you have a real problem to overcome. If the computer doesn't break, XP will stay. My mom wanted XP on her new computer because whe wanted "everything to look the same". She's okay with 7 so far, but she only uses e-mail and a little web browsing.
Of course, you seem to be focused on the average person when it seems the submitter is asking people who are aware that upgrades are possible. Feel free to let us know what's keeping *you* on XP:)
"throughout history" is a weasel word (or phrase, more accurately). Nearly the entire population of the world would agree these experiments are abhorrent and should not have taken place, and certainly nothing like that should be done again.
Besides, the point is not about whether bad things have been done. The point instead is that someone who is results-oriented would not automatically approve of these things. Most certainly, they would not be so narrow minded as to ignore the effect on the experimental subject as part of the "results".
Part of the effect of infecting someone with syphilis just to study its course, when we knew at the time that it causes significant permanent damage, results in a lot of damage done to the population. That is part of the result, and would lead a pragmatic person to dismiss the idea.
All of the sudden I'm having to create my own custom controls that inherited from repeaters
Welcome to Object Oriented Programming. This is exactly what you are expected to do. Or to do a very simple change, override a base function with your version of the code. In your case, the DataBind event
The difficulty of.NET is that there are so many controls with different events, methods, members, it's hard to find what you're looking for. There is too much to memorize, and it is not as consistent as I would like it to be, so you can't easily transfer learning from one control to another.
But I've never failed to find exactly what I needed, a complete working example, by throwing a few keywords into Google. A few app-specific tweaks and it works.
And if you want to skip that and write your own from scratch, or use things from CodeProject or MSDN or other sites, there's nothing stopping you there. It took me a long time to realize this is how it works, but now it makes sense and I see that it is very easy to get up and running, and likewise with a bit of work customize just about any aspect of any control.
For your example, there are many options. I searched for the binding events on MSDN, decided I'd like to add a row before or after some event, and googled "add row after RowDataBound" and within a few clicks found this:
The example is verbose, but essentially you handle RowDataBound() and then insert a new GridViewRow with DataControlRowType.Separator specified. It should be 4-5 lines max, including the function declaration.
Honestly, with so much to know Google writes half of my applications. I get paid to know what to search for, and to strip down the responses to their basic implementations. Nothing is ever directly copyable, as people have their own application logic in there.
I've already commented, otherwise I'd mod this up. I sometimes program or modify in assembly language, ad I have to say, cracking an app here or there has made me absolutely paranoid when writing. I still think in machine execution terms when writing VB.NET. I consider what the CPU has to do to get the results I want.
Side effect, I was able to make a web service 30 plus times faster by changing maybe 4 lines of code. Because I know what the VM/Interpreter has to do, and I tell it to do the same thing a different way.
When you study the viruses and malware that has taken over IIS over the years, or your chosen platform instead, you get a different perspective on where things are important. Being able to do even a few simple hacks on a website will get you further than most safety tutorials. Be a black hat on your own website, sometimes this is called White Hat.
a lot of common Internet problems are reliably and intelligently pre-solved for you if you control enough of the technology stack.
Another bad assumption, that you control enough of the technology stack. I did address the technologies a layer above. You can't control the IP implementation, nor the TLS, nor LDAP, nor anything else outside of what your framework allows you to control.
Therefore, you have to distrust everything. Assume your LDAP is compromised, that TLS is broken, that your framework and web server and host OS are all broken. Write as defensively as possible.
This isn't about just writing an application, there is OS level hardening, web server hardening, framework hardening, and more. You can't assume it's all in place and just write the application. Especially if you are "clueless of what is requires to create a web server that is as secure as, say, a banking account management system."
That is the (one of) the reason(s) Sony got hacked repeatedly within a few weeks. Don't assume anything. The web is hostile, everyone is an enemy, and no matter what your assumptions, unless you assume that everyone is an enemy, you are going to be wrong. Just once out of a million page views, or a trillion, or a trillion squared, once is all it takes.
Sounds like you're making bad assumptions. One unexpected breach and your network is no longer secure. On a secure network, you still close off all of the ports except the ones you use. You don't make assumptions that something is safe, you add IP filtering and passwords.
Web apps are exactly the same as any other intranet app, and should be just as secure. The only difference is, you also have a web server and a framework adding potential bugs and holes. And then your code most likely has to protect against common browser-based attacks and handle user authentication/authorization on a stateless connection.
Don't trust anything on any network, or you'll end up like Sony. Breach after breach.
I found the writing quite amusing at times, and the rest of it was good enough that I am willing to sit through it to get to the good bits.
More on topic, when a series (or product or service) is removed people will generally feel a sense of loss. If there is no similar replacement, people will tend to remember the good parts, forget the bad parts, and want to relive those halcyon days when it existed.
When something outlives its shelf life, people get used to it not being so good, and its loss isn't as much of an impact. "They should have killed it earlier" is something I read a lot.
A highly rated restaurant will often give you enough food to be sated, but no so much that you are stuffed, so that you want to come back. The widely bashed "gourmet" portion sizes, where you appear to pay a lot for relatively little, is intended to whet your appetite for future visits in the same way a cancelled series makes people look forward to a "next installment" which never arrives.
It's quite simply the negative side of "Always leave them wanting more."
The current board is different from the one that hired and went along with Leo. In case you are concerned about the board but haven't bothered to pay attention to its changes. It helps to keep track of these things if you care.
Not saying it's any better, you'll have to decide for yourself. Just update your database first, please.
Fuck it, ban sand. They live their lives in sand, it must do bad things for people. Hell, ban brown people, they persecute white people. Actually, last time I was in France I noticed a certain disdain, better ban all of the Romance language countries, obviously they hate us. Germanic languages apparently too, because they were anti-American. We had a world war over that.
The only thing left for me to say is: Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.
All you need is one success, and they'll start to sit up and listen next time.
I hate to sound defeatist, but if you appear to be a threat to the country, you can be infinitely detained. You are no longer required to be due to an amendment, but you can be.
All you need is one success and whatever you're doing will be outlawed. Anything like SOPA that passes, your website can be black holed and they don't even need to arrest anyone.
The tools to prevent such an uprising are already in place, and more are being prepared. Even if that isn't the goal of SOPA, you can believe it will be used that way if the status quo is threatened.
You can't survive with one success. You need a whole lot of successes all at the same time so you can't get blocked.
Nope, it's almost impossible at this point. The government is so well armed you would need to get the military and police and reserve individuals on your side before you even began. And just the act of getting them on your side is terrorism. So if you're discovered, thanks to NDAA, you are infinitely detained.
The government has more firepower, legal power, any other kind of power I can think of, than anything short of the entire population of able adults could overcome.
The only possible revolution will be electing necessary evils who think like Grover Norquist, shrinking government until it can be drowned in a bathtub so the politicians can actually fear their constituents. And if that ever happens, revolution is likely to be unnecessary.
And that's why the movie makers are trying to screw netflix as much as possible. Excluding them for up to 90 days, higher pricings, some won't even give them any movies at all.
I like to have other people see it in the theater, and I get a good idea of whether it's working paying $1.20 for out of Netflix. I'm tired of the old bait and switch where the trailer was better than the movie. So I let the public review the movies. There are good ones out there, you just have to sift through junk to find it.
Crappy picture quality doesn't make sense to me, the only issues I have had are when they don't turn up the brightness for 3D like they are supposed to do. I have the movie theater number in my phone, so I just let the people around me know what I'm doing, and call. If you get a recorded message, I tell the manager and ask for a number to call next time. I have had to call about brightness, and forgetting to change the lens between the previews to the movie, and the manager appreciates it because people won't return when their movies look bad.
And as for "stupid glasses" I thank goodness that I don't have to wear glasses all the time like most people I know, and it doesn't bother me like that. With "Theater 3D" televisions out now by LG and Vizio, you can buy glasses that will probably fit your fat head better than what they give you at the theater, and just bring them in with you. Same polarization, same result.
And thus your argument comes down to cost. Yes it's expensive, and that's why I don't go very often. Avatar and District 9 were the last two I have seen at a theater. The only reason I look at listings these days is to find a 3D movie, which I don't have at home. I may see Tin Tin.
I said he is a dick. I also said that customer service type people are taught this type of term, and it doesn't mean what people read into it. Most likely he didn't mean it as I explained, his own dickish nature allowed him to interpret it however he wanted.
But there is a big difference between him coming up with the idea of controlling a customer on his own, versus it being a valid phrase that his dickheadedness misinterprets.
Doesn't make him any less of a dick. I'm not making excuses for his dickish behavior, I just think people should understand where it most likely came from so they can make sense of his dickishness. In fact, looking at it this way, he knew that he was supposed to control the customer, but could not make himself, making his dickery appear much more ingrained and permanent than a "bad day at work." And much more impossible to apologise for.
You've not been in customer service, have you? "Call control" is a frequent feedback point when calls start to run long, and I assume that's what he was talking about here.
Keep the customer focused on the issue, don't let them blabber and complain, instead get the problem fixed and the customer back to their day. Some people don't really want the problem solved, they want people to hear about it and point out all of the problems, an "I told you so" kind of rant, or "when I worked for a company like yours this would never have happened" or "I used to respect your brand, now you've let it go into the crapper". They think they are talking to someone who has the power to change something. And you can't let those people tie you up.
Yes it sounds bad phrased like that, but anyone who does any kind of support or customer contact should have been coached on controlling the customer. He realizes that he could have phrased things differently and not pissed this guy off, that's "controlling the customer". What he doesn't realize is that his natural personality is quite dick-ish and won't allow him to do that. Especially when you have piles of people asking the same thing, and are afraid to give some bad news that stuff won't be under the Christmas tree as promised, and you're too arrogant to apologise.
That, and the actual article does no painting, nor is it a very dark picture. Amazon tried to get additional money, and I didn't see anything about patents or other infringement.
"a look at the full suit" is a blank box with noscript enabled, but I wouldn't have to read it if the article would explain the infringement parts a bit more.
If it happens again, just go to the address bar and hit Enter or Go. Same link, but no referrer header. This doesn't work if the error page is a redirect, but you can just copy and paste the link instead. Or just ignore it completely.
Why does anyone do personal programming? To save time. I would have written it regardless of the emplyoment contract. And I would have found myself in the same boat.
I would have done the work with or without an agreement to be paid, because I solve problems with software. It bothers me when people do things manually instead of via easily scripted software.
I don't feel an obligation to the company, I feel one to myself. And I do what I need to do.
I know plenty of admins who have scripted and automated their tasks, or someone else's. A good employer recognizes contributions, mine does. Not financially necessarily, but in a way that gets your name out there. Scripting logon so that drives get mapped automatically, or with minimal input. Sorting through logs for whatever, watching for whatever. VBScript, PowerShell, BaSH, CSH, these are done because they are needed.
Few people get paid for the additional programming they do to make their job easier. I wrote a T-SQL script to generate insert/update ASP code from the database metadata. One day, things stopped working and I had to make a manual entry page for some automated tables. 15 minutes later I had something functional, and within an hour I had something tested and documented enough for people to use. It helped, and I never got paid for it. I did it because I hate typing. Although you'd never know by my comments.
Having done the work, they still have the option of suggesting it. If it's not implemented, or if the URLs / entry points aren't known, there is room to bargain. But you can't expect much, at least immediately.
If this is a USA based person, copyright happens at the date of creation. The only harm caused by backdating the copyright is reduction of your copyright term. I'm no lawyer, but no one could prove they were harmed by this, only benefitted. So no one has standing on that particular point. If I have copyright, I have the right to dictate the terms of copying as long as I don't increase the copy right artificially. Decreasing it or eliminating it is my option.
The OP says he had lots of downtime and wrote this during that time. They should have tracked his workload better, as it is they were paying him to either do nothing or do whatever he pleased within reason (read the internet, a book, stare at boobs, whatever). The employment contract should specify ownership of any on the clock work.
Bottom line, there's no reason anyone can prove harm unless the employment contract is specific about ownership during emplyed time or workload.
My pay was $10k less than my actual salary range according to my title for over a year. I still exceeded expectations by doing what was necessary, and saving time.
I doubled my salary in 4 years, by consistently delivering. In a Fortune 120 company, with strict restrictions on raises.
I put in my time, I got screwed, now I'm comfortable. And, i have lots of contacts inside and outside (people who have left) the company, people who would recommend me. I'm being pursued by someone I worked with.
Do you feel like you're at the top of your game, or at least at the top of other peoples' games? You might bubble-sort to the top. If you are seen as expendable, you might be the many people I've seen get screwed over the years.
No one here can tell you how your management will respond.
Slashdot Mirror
If you will celebrate when IE usage drops below 1% as in your previous post, but you can't use it yourself, only a few situations suggest themselves.
1) You have to make HTML work in many browsers
2) You're anti-Microsoft but have stopped caring why
3) Going for +5 funny moderation but not actually contributing anything
Whatever it is, you're not helping, so for all of the people who think like you:
When IE 6 and 7 are no longer around, life will be a lot easier for web developers. Even with things like jQuery, you can't do all the things you might like to do if you expect IE6/7 visitors.
If you don't use it, but you do visit websites, you should be happy that IE6 is going away, and support IE9 as the lesser of 4 evils, if only because it makes better things possible. Without IE6, or if it was quickly replaced with IE7, the web would be a far more pleasant place. IF nothing else, little time would be spent on trying to figure out why your website is written to the standard, but sucks in the most used browser, leaving more time for actual work.
We should celebrate IE9, even if we don't want to.
Here's some reading for you.
That's not actually true. Most of the big distributors vary the contract per film. They also have variable lengths and variable percentages. An expected blockbuster may have 3 weeks where 100% of the ticket goes to the distributor, and after that the house gets to keep a percentage. A less anticipated movie may have a more equitable split, or only a day or two at a high percentage.
If the audience drops off quickly while in that initial distibution agreement, you can bet the movie will be replaced by something that makes the house something. Which is why some movies only play for a few days, even though some people are still going. If the audience is going strong, the house can keep showing it and make a percentage off tickets as well as concessions.
Typically, indie films or other small films will get shown just because the percentage is higher. Fewer people mean fewer concessions, but it evens out being able to keep more of the ticket.
If anything, theaters should be charging more to cover their initial costs. But at 100%, raising the ticket prices won't do anything for the theater, and the distributor may have a minimum they can't go under (must be at least your normal ticket price).
Plus, theaters probably want to be on the commodity scale, you know what you're going to pay for. Larger communities may have the ability to split pricing, but most theaters want to remain predictable so people make plans without having to check the price first. Wanna go see the new movie? Sure, wait, how much will it be? They don't want you to have that conversation to get in the way of a potential sale unless they have a large enough population that it doesn't matter.
When you load a folder in XP, it lists the subdirectories (which are just directory entries like files). I got annoyed that it would insist on showing the folder view on the right side, which meant it had to list the files in each subdirectory to see if it had subdirectories for itself, to show or hide the plus sign to expand it. And of course it has to load the icons for each file, and especially opening executables to get the icon resource.
I got really irritated when Vista added the "feature" of customizing each folder's appearance. Now it has to see if there is a desktop.ini file in each folder, open it, parse it, and load the relevant icons. And it tries to determine the folder type by seeing what files you have in there. So it can choose which columns to display, many of which are file metadata. So each file has to be opened and parsed for things like length (videos), EXIF data (images), and other junk I don't need.
So now you click a folder, it's empty, and the files and folders appear one by one, as they are parsed and the icons are available. It's very slow, although 7 is much smoother than Vista, but it still has the same deficiencies.
I discarded the idea of writing my own file explorer when I figured out how to tame XP, but I've gone back to it recently. The drag and drop and other integrations are a bit annoying to deal with, but I think I'll finish soon.
And yes, I'm aware of and probably have tried your favorite file manager, and rejected it because it is not both keyboard friendly and mouse friendly - I will use the fastest interface I can, and having to type when I can click, or click when I can use a shortcut really drives me bonkers. I'd much rather type-ahead and wait for explorer to catch up than waste time telling it what to do.
I think you forgot: Most people consider the computer an appliance. They might understand the concept of a patch, but replacing the operating system completely is not something they would even think of.
And as an appliance, if it is still working there's no need to replace it. In fact, most people I know will run a microwave, stove, toaster, light bulb, anything well after it shows signs of degrading, because it still works. If vendors want us to buy, they will have to work on this perception It's not the razor, we need to understand, it's the razor blade. And that will never work, not now.
It was built with XP in mind, why would it work with anything else? Combine that with several years of "I update to Vista and nothing would work right" and you have a real problem to overcome. If the computer doesn't break, XP will stay. My mom wanted XP on her new computer because whe wanted "everything to look the same". She's okay with 7 so far, but she only uses e-mail and a little web browsing.
Of course, you seem to be focused on the average person when it seems the submitter is asking people who are aware that upgrades are possible. Feel free to let us know what's keeping *you* on XP :)
I maintained VB6 code on vista, and continue on 7 64-bit, no problems. And I had MSVS 6 on Vista, compiled C++ without issue.
You might want to try a VM and make sure you were correct - my experience says it works.
"throughout history" is a weasel word (or phrase, more accurately). Nearly the entire population of the world would agree these experiments are abhorrent and should not have taken place, and certainly nothing like that should be done again.
Besides, the point is not about whether bad things have been done. The point instead is that someone who is results-oriented would not automatically approve of these things. Most certainly, they would not be so narrow minded as to ignore the effect on the experimental subject as part of the "results".
Part of the effect of infecting someone with syphilis just to study its course, when we knew at the time that it causes significant permanent damage, results in a lot of damage done to the population. That is part of the result, and would lead a pragmatic person to dismiss the idea.
Welcome to Object Oriented Programming. This is exactly what you are expected to do. Or to do a very simple change, override a base function with your version of the code. In your case, the DataBind event
The difficulty of .NET is that there are so many controls with different events, methods, members, it's hard to find what you're looking for. There is too much to memorize, and it is not as consistent as I would like it to be, so you can't easily transfer learning from one control to another.
But I've never failed to find exactly what I needed, a complete working example, by throwing a few keywords into Google. A few app-specific tweaks and it works.
And if you want to skip that and write your own from scratch, or use things from CodeProject or MSDN or other sites, there's nothing stopping you there. It took me a long time to realize this is how it works, but now it makes sense and I see that it is very easy to get up and running, and likewise with a bit of work customize just about any aspect of any control.
For your example, there are many options. I searched for the binding events on MSDN, decided I'd like to add a row before or after some event, and googled "add row after RowDataBound" and within a few clicks found this:
http://forums.asp.net/t/1251362.aspx
The example is verbose, but essentially you handle RowDataBound() and then insert a new GridViewRow with DataControlRowType.Separator specified. It should be 4-5 lines max, including the function declaration.
Honestly, with so much to know Google writes half of my applications. I get paid to know what to search for, and to strip down the responses to their basic implementations. Nothing is ever directly copyable, as people have their own application logic in there.
I've already commented, otherwise I'd mod this up. I sometimes program or modify in assembly language, ad I have to say, cracking an app here or there has made me absolutely paranoid when writing. I still think in machine execution terms when writing VB.NET. I consider what the CPU has to do to get the results I want.
Side effect, I was able to make a web service 30 plus times faster by changing maybe 4 lines of code. Because I know what the VM/Interpreter has to do, and I tell it to do the same thing a different way.
When you study the viruses and malware that has taken over IIS over the years, or your chosen platform instead, you get a different perspective on where things are important. Being able to do even a few simple hacks on a website will get you further than most safety tutorials. Be a black hat on your own website, sometimes this is called White Hat.
a lot of common Internet problems are reliably and intelligently pre-solved for you if you control enough of the technology stack.
Another bad assumption, that you control enough of the technology stack. I did address the technologies a layer above. You can't control the IP implementation, nor the TLS, nor LDAP, nor anything else outside of what your framework allows you to control.
Therefore, you have to distrust everything. Assume your LDAP is compromised, that TLS is broken, that your framework and web server and host OS are all broken. Write as defensively as possible.
This isn't about just writing an application, there is OS level hardening, web server hardening, framework hardening, and more. You can't assume it's all in place and just write the application. Especially if you are "clueless of what is requires to create a web server that is as secure as, say, a banking account management system."
That is the (one of) the reason(s) Sony got hacked repeatedly within a few weeks. Don't assume anything. The web is hostile, everyone is an enemy, and no matter what your assumptions, unless you assume that everyone is an enemy, you are going to be wrong. Just once out of a million page views, or a trillion, or a trillion squared, once is all it takes.
Sounds like you're making bad assumptions. One unexpected breach and your network is no longer secure. On a secure network, you still close off all of the ports except the ones you use. You don't make assumptions that something is safe, you add IP filtering and passwords.
Web apps are exactly the same as any other intranet app, and should be just as secure. The only difference is, you also have a web server and a framework adding potential bugs and holes. And then your code most likely has to protect against common browser-based attacks and handle user authentication/authorization on a stateless connection.
Don't trust anything on any network, or you'll end up like Sony. Breach after breach.
I found the writing quite amusing at times, and the rest of it was good enough that I am willing to sit through it to get to the good bits.
More on topic, when a series (or product or service) is removed people will generally feel a sense of loss. If there is no similar replacement, people will tend to remember the good parts, forget the bad parts, and want to relive those halcyon days when it existed.
When something outlives its shelf life, people get used to it not being so good, and its loss isn't as much of an impact. "They should have killed it earlier" is something I read a lot.
A highly rated restaurant will often give you enough food to be sated, but no so much that you are stuffed, so that you want to come back. The widely bashed "gourmet" portion sizes, where you appear to pay a lot for relatively little, is intended to whet your appetite for future visits in the same way a cancelled series makes people look forward to a "next installment" which never arrives.
It's quite simply the negative side of "Always leave them wanting more."
The current board is different from the one that hired and went along with Leo. In case you are concerned about the board but haven't bothered to pay attention to its changes. It helps to keep track of these things if you care.
Not saying it's any better, you'll have to decide for yourself. Just update your database first, please.
Fuck it, ban sand. They live their lives in sand, it must do bad things for people. Hell, ban brown people, they persecute white people. Actually, last time I was in France I noticed a certain disdain, better ban all of the Romance language countries, obviously they hate us. Germanic languages apparently too, because they were anti-American. We had a world war over that.
The only thing left for me to say is: Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.
I hate to sound defeatist, but if you appear to be a threat to the country, you can be infinitely detained. You are no longer required to be due to an amendment, but you can be.
All you need is one success and whatever you're doing will be outlawed. Anything like SOPA that passes, your website can be black holed and they don't even need to arrest anyone.
The tools to prevent such an uprising are already in place, and more are being prepared. Even if that isn't the goal of SOPA, you can believe it will be used that way if the status quo is threatened.
You can't survive with one success. You need a whole lot of successes all at the same time so you can't get blocked.
Nope, it's almost impossible at this point. The government is so well armed you would need to get the military and police and reserve individuals on your side before you even began. And just the act of getting them on your side is terrorism. So if you're discovered, thanks to NDAA, you are infinitely detained.
The government has more firepower, legal power, any other kind of power I can think of, than anything short of the entire population of able adults could overcome.
The only possible revolution will be electing necessary evils who think like Grover Norquist, shrinking government until it can be drowned in a bathtub so the politicians can actually fear their constituents. And if that ever happens, revolution is likely to be unnecessary.
And that's why the movie makers are trying to screw netflix as much as possible. Excluding them for up to 90 days, higher pricings, some won't even give them any movies at all.
I like to have other people see it in the theater, and I get a good idea of whether it's working paying $1.20 for out of Netflix. I'm tired of the old bait and switch where the trailer was better than the movie. So I let the public review the movies. There are good ones out there, you just have to sift through junk to find it.
So... cost?
Crappy picture quality doesn't make sense to me, the only issues I have had are when they don't turn up the brightness for 3D like they are supposed to do. I have the movie theater number in my phone, so I just let the people around me know what I'm doing, and call. If you get a recorded message, I tell the manager and ask for a number to call next time. I have had to call about brightness, and forgetting to change the lens between the previews to the movie, and the manager appreciates it because people won't return when their movies look bad.
And as for "stupid glasses" I thank goodness that I don't have to wear glasses all the time like most people I know, and it doesn't bother me like that. With "Theater 3D" televisions out now by LG and Vizio, you can buy glasses that will probably fit your fat head better than what they give you at the theater, and just bring them in with you. Same polarization, same result.
And thus your argument comes down to cost. Yes it's expensive, and that's why I don't go very often. Avatar and District 9 were the last two I have seen at a theater. The only reason I look at listings these days is to find a 3D movie, which I don't have at home. I may see Tin Tin.
I said he is a dick. I also said that customer service type people are taught this type of term, and it doesn't mean what people read into it. Most likely he didn't mean it as I explained, his own dickish nature allowed him to interpret it however he wanted.
But there is a big difference between him coming up with the idea of controlling a customer on his own, versus it being a valid phrase that his dickheadedness misinterprets.
Doesn't make him any less of a dick. I'm not making excuses for his dickish behavior, I just think people should understand where it most likely came from so they can make sense of his dickishness. In fact, looking at it this way, he knew that he was supposed to control the customer, but could not make himself, making his dickery appear much more ingrained and permanent than a "bad day at work." And much more impossible to apologise for.
You've not been in customer service, have you? "Call control" is a frequent feedback point when calls start to run long, and I assume that's what he was talking about here.
Keep the customer focused on the issue, don't let them blabber and complain, instead get the problem fixed and the customer back to their day. Some people don't really want the problem solved, they want people to hear about it and point out all of the problems, an "I told you so" kind of rant, or "when I worked for a company like yours this would never have happened" or "I used to respect your brand, now you've let it go into the crapper". They think they are talking to someone who has the power to change something. And you can't let those people tie you up.
Yes it sounds bad phrased like that, but anyone who does any kind of support or customer contact should have been coached on controlling the customer. He realizes that he could have phrased things differently and not pissed this guy off, that's "controlling the customer". What he doesn't realize is that his natural personality is quite dick-ish and won't allow him to do that. Especially when you have piles of people asking the same thing, and are afraid to give some bad news that stuff won't be under the Christmas tree as promised, and you're too arrogant to apologise.
That, and the actual article does no painting, nor is it a very dark picture. Amazon tried to get additional money, and I didn't see anything about patents or other infringement.
"a look at the full suit" is a blank box with noscript enabled, but I wouldn't have to read it if the article would explain the infringement parts a bit more.
The comments are more damning than the article.
If it happens again, just go to the address bar and hit Enter or Go. Same link, but no referrer header. This doesn't work if the error page is a redirect, but you can just copy and paste the link instead. Or just ignore it completely.
Why does anyone do personal programming? To save time. I would have written it regardless of the emplyoment contract. And I would have found myself in the same boat.
I would have done the work with or without an agreement to be paid, because I solve problems with software. It bothers me when people do things manually instead of via easily scripted software.
I don't feel an obligation to the company, I feel one to myself. And I do what I need to do.
I know plenty of admins who have scripted and automated their tasks, or someone else's. A good employer recognizes contributions, mine does. Not financially necessarily, but in a way that gets your name out there. Scripting logon so that drives get mapped automatically, or with minimal input. Sorting through logs for whatever, watching for whatever. VBScript, PowerShell, BaSH, CSH, these are done because they are needed.
Few people get paid for the additional programming they do to make their job easier. I wrote a T-SQL script to generate insert/update ASP code from the database metadata. One day, things stopped working and I had to make a manual entry page for some automated tables. 15 minutes later I had something functional, and within an hour I had something tested and documented enough for people to use. It helped, and I never got paid for it. I did it because I hate typing. Although you'd never know by my comments.
Having done the work, they still have the option of suggesting it. If it's not implemented, or if the URLs / entry points aren't known, there is room to bargain. But you can't expect much, at least immediately.
If this is a USA based person, copyright happens at the date of creation. The only harm caused by backdating the copyright is reduction of your copyright term. I'm no lawyer, but no one could prove they were harmed by this, only benefitted. So no one has standing on that particular point. If I have copyright, I have the right to dictate the terms of copying as long as I don't increase the copy right artificially. Decreasing it or eliminating it is my option.
The OP says he had lots of downtime and wrote this during that time. They should have tracked his workload better, as it is they were paying him to either do nothing or do whatever he pleased within reason (read the internet, a book, stare at boobs, whatever). The employment contract should specify ownership of any on the clock work.
Bottom line, there's no reason anyone can prove harm unless the employment contract is specific about ownership during emplyed time or workload.
Again, not a laywer.
My pay was $10k less than my actual salary range according to my title for over a year. I still exceeded expectations by doing what was necessary, and saving time.
I doubled my salary in 4 years, by consistently delivering. In a Fortune 120 company, with strict restrictions on raises.
I put in my time, I got screwed, now I'm comfortable. And, i have lots of contacts inside and outside (people who have left) the company, people who would recommend me. I'm being pursued by someone I worked with.
Do you feel like you're at the top of your game, or at least at the top of other peoples' games? You might bubble-sort to the top. If you are seen as expendable, you might be the many people I've seen get screwed over the years.
No one here can tell you how your management will respond.
HAHAHAHA I got a new Linksys. My WPS doesn't work at all. Joke's on them! HAHAHAHAWAit a minute.