To suggest that Google does nothing to support the papers costs is particularly naive/disingenuous. Go medieval - apologise profusely while removing all Guardian content from their news site and index.
"We have a theory of gravity, it explains why the obvious truism that things fall to Earth is so. It's a theory so we'd abandon it if we found evidence showing it cannot be correct"
and
"We have a theory of evolution, it explains why the obvious truism that there is diverse life on Earth is so. It's a theory so we'd abandon if it we found evidence showing it cannot be correct."
People always seem to cite the 'theory of gravity' as a magic bullet that explains why preaching in a science glass is a terrible thing. It just doesn't cut the mustard, and won't convince anyone.
I'm no lawyer, but if you were on the hook for damages in the eyes of an English court, it wouldn't be very sensible setting foot anywhere in the EU. I'd definitely want to get the opinion of a someone in the know. Then on top of that you'd have to worry if there are going to be any non-legal issues for you back home. What happens if you want to apply for a job which involves a thorough background check. Would it show up that some court case in another country has gone against you? Would it effect you? How about if a foreign government *really* dislikes you and places economic sanctions against any companies operating in their borders who are known to work with you. Not many global companies would work with you if it threatened operations in a valuable foreign market.
At the very least I'd lose allot of sleep making sure my arse was covered.
Nah, all things considered, writing off crazy civil laws in another country as irrelevant just because they can't send the bailiffs overseas dangerous. Globalisation rolls on and I reckon doing stuff on the Internet that can get you in trouble abroad will become increasingly irksome for everyone.
Speaking as British citizen with no assets in the US; I'd consider myself royally screwed if I prevented myself from visiting, working with or ever having any assets based in any of the worlds top 10 economies.
Layout should be identical amongst media types. Rendering differences (think: fonts available, widgets, text-only workstations etc.) are possible with two different systems adhering perfectly to standards.
Try telling that to a non-technical designer though:(
I don't understand how this companies electronic ballot boxes can be tolerated. Given the history of Diebold stories this announce doesn't surprise me. I'm sure there are plenty of other folks who aren't surprised. I'm damn near certain if there was public access to the code operating these machines then the faults would have been determined much earlier. Surely something is horribly horribly wrong here.
Does this acknowledgement mean that Diebold machines will be retired from service immediately? And, more importantly does it mean that the process which allowed these Diebold machines to be used in the first place will be reviewed?
Perhaps it will mean that the concept of using a machine where most voters don't understand it's workings will be viewed as unacceptable. I doubt it.
I'm implying (evidently not clearly enough) that likening the development of OS/Free software to a for-profit company offering a service is not a valid thing to do if you're implying that the lack of a sound business model will condemn the former to failure as it would the latter.
Your thoughts on OSS folks' shortcomings seem bizarre considering
1. OSS is so diverse (it incorporates small snippets of code up to some incredibly ambitious, huge software products) that sweeping generalisations are difficult to swallow..
2. OSS is everywhere. Java, Python, Perl, PHP, GCC, Eclipse, Apache, Tomcat, MySQL, Postgres, OpenOffice, Firefox, Thunderbird. Sendmail, Postfix. Think about how much OSS code you've used directly and indirectly in the last month, then think about the implications of what you're saying again.
I would agree with you in a vaguely related situation: You need a business model that works to build a business around OSS. You certainly do not need a business model for OSS to support businesses, be developed in the first place, or maintained by interested people.
Giving your time and resources for free isn't a broken business model - it flat out *isn't* a business model.
Much open source software gets started because it's a neat thing for a guy to work on, or solves a need for him. If he's not in a position (or the software isn't complete enough) to make any money selling it, then opening it it up and hoping you can get the benefit of other people improving it is just a smart option.
Then, once there are reasonably mature Open Source projects out there, others still can often get a competitive advantage using them theirselves - and thus perpetuating them further. It's a vicious cycle of goodness.
I'm not saying people don't build (good and bad) business models relying on open source software, just that it'll probably always exist, and become more prevalent 'cause of a typical developer mentality meeting economics.
OSS stands for Open Source Software, not services. Why would you want to remember Google shutting down a free service when discussing open/free software?
You think using technology to help enforce an IT policy and respecting your employees are mutually exclusive aims? I strongly disagree.
A small contingent of 'bad apples' can do serious harm if you do not effectively enforce IT policies. It's not possible to guarantee there is no one like this in your company, so you should protect the company and other staff from from them.
Respecting staff won't stop douchebags being douchebags and screwing up your systems.
No, from what I understand the system involves strapping a key to a shark who'll swim it to the recipient. The friggin' laser shoots anyone trying to intercept it, thereby guaranteeing security.
Sharks with friggin laser beams have become more adundant as of late, which is why they can do this so cheaply.
Slashdot Mirror
To suggest that Google does nothing to support the papers costs is particularly naive/disingenuous. Go medieval - apologise profusely while removing all Guardian content from their news site and index.
No no no, you want to take that small fluffy animal, and nail it to your Netbook. Job done. /brushes off manly hands.
Consider these two sentences:
"We have a theory of gravity, it explains why the obvious truism that things fall to Earth is so. It's a theory so we'd abandon it if we found evidence showing it cannot be correct"
and
"We have a theory of evolution, it explains why the obvious truism that there is diverse life on Earth is so. It's a theory so we'd abandon if it we found evidence showing it cannot be correct."
People always seem to cite the 'theory of gravity' as a magic bullet that explains why preaching in a science glass is a terrible thing. It just doesn't cut the mustard, and won't convince anyone.
I'm no lawyer, but if you were on the hook for damages in the eyes of an English court, it wouldn't be very sensible setting foot anywhere in the EU. I'd definitely want to get the opinion of a someone in the know. Then on top of that you'd have to worry if there are going to be any non-legal issues for you back home. What happens if you want to apply for a job which involves a thorough background check. Would it show up that some court case in another country has gone against you? Would it effect you? How about if a foreign government *really* dislikes you and places economic sanctions against any companies operating in their borders who are known to work with you. Not many global companies would work with you if it threatened operations in a valuable foreign market.
At the very least I'd lose allot of sleep making sure my arse was covered.
Nah, all things considered, writing off crazy civil laws in another country as irrelevant just because they can't send the bailiffs overseas dangerous. Globalisation rolls on and I reckon doing stuff on the Internet that can get you in trouble abroad will become increasingly irksome for everyone.
Speaking as British citizen with no assets in the US; I'd consider myself royally screwed if I prevented myself from visiting, working with or ever having any assets based in any of the worlds top 10 economies.
Who said anything about free???
The guy I was replying to.
Layout should be identical amongst media types. Rendering differences (think: fonts available, widgets, text-only workstations etc.) are possible with two different systems adhering perfectly to standards.
Try telling that to a non-technical designer though :(
Overlay? Interactivity? Real time results?
Last time I checked browser shots didn't provide that for free.
This sounds like the first new MS product that's interested me in a while.
He possibly meant that Gore said "science will not intrude on public policy".
As long as you're satisfied yourself with your sources, there's no need to obsessively point the origin to others to them for no good reason.
The reference used in the wikipedia page for that quote is 'Peterson, Thomas & Connolley, William & Fleck, John (September 2008)'
Ban McDonalds, save the planet?
Yes, I can do it in just 4 steps:
1. Stop car
2. Jack car up
3. Remove flat
4. Install spare
Can I get a job at Google now?
Yeah, but did he say that before or after the Battlestar Galactica finale?
How could they be reading it in the future? IE8 indicates the end of the Internet, duh.
I don't understand how this companies electronic ballot boxes can be tolerated. Given the history of Diebold stories this announce doesn't surprise me. I'm sure there are plenty of other folks who aren't surprised. I'm damn near certain if there was public access to the code operating these machines then the faults would have been determined much earlier. Surely something is horribly horribly wrong here.
Does this acknowledgement mean that Diebold machines will be retired from service immediately? And, more importantly does it mean that the process which allowed these Diebold machines to be used in the first place will be reviewed?
Perhaps it will mean that the concept of using a machine where most voters don't understand it's workings will be viewed as unacceptable. I doubt it.
Democracy has become a bad parody of itself.
Rant ends.
Mac: "I'm a PC"
PC: "And I'm a P - whaa? Goddamnit Mac, have you been talking to Linux again?."
* PC bitchslaps Mac upside the head
Mac (hurt): "Aww, Pee Cee."
* Linux jumps up and down laughing maniacally
Stick one of these up on the wall, and just go with it.
I'm implying (evidently not clearly enough) that likening the development of OS/Free software to a for-profit company offering a service is not a valid thing to do if you're implying that the lack of a sound business model will condemn the former to failure as it would the latter.
Your thoughts on OSS folks' shortcomings seem bizarre considering
1. OSS is so diverse (it incorporates small snippets of code up to some incredibly ambitious, huge software products) that sweeping generalisations are difficult to swallow..
2. OSS is everywhere. Java, Python, Perl, PHP, GCC, Eclipse, Apache, Tomcat, MySQL, Postgres, OpenOffice, Firefox, Thunderbird. Sendmail, Postfix. Think about how much OSS code you've used directly and indirectly in the last month, then think about the implications of what you're saying again.
I would agree with you in a vaguely related situation: You need a business model that works to build a business around OSS. You certainly do not need a business model for OSS to support businesses, be developed in the first place, or maintained by interested people.
Giving your time and resources for free isn't a broken business model - it flat out *isn't* a business model.
Much open source software gets started because it's a neat thing for a guy to work on, or solves a need for him. If he's not in a position (or the software isn't complete enough) to make any money selling it, then opening it it up and hoping you can get the benefit of other people improving it is just a smart option.
Then, once there are reasonably mature Open Source projects out there, others still can often get a competitive advantage using them theirselves - and thus perpetuating them further. It's a vicious cycle of goodness.
I'm not saying people don't build (good and bad) business models relying on open source software, just that it'll probably always exist, and become more prevalent 'cause of a typical developer mentality meeting economics.
OSS stands for Open Source Software, not services. Why would you want to remember Google shutting down a free service when discussing open/free software?
I don't think we disagree
You're right, I meant to reply to the guy you were replying to. Oops.
You think using technology to help enforce an IT policy and respecting your employees are mutually exclusive aims? I strongly disagree.
A small contingent of 'bad apples' can do serious harm if you do not effectively enforce IT policies. It's not possible to guarantee there is no one like this in your company, so you should protect the company and other staff from from them.
Respecting staff won't stop douchebags being douchebags and screwing up your systems.
I know what you mean: They're both elephant.
Precisely, this would show you the 'exact location' of the camera, not the bootlegger. Subtle yet important difference.
No, from what I understand the system involves strapping a key to a shark who'll swim it to the recipient. The friggin' laser shoots anyone trying to intercept it, thereby guaranteeing security.
Sharks with friggin laser beams have become more adundant as of late, which is why they can do this so cheaply.