While there is something to what you say about the final user experience being what matters, you are also a little too short sighted. Sometimes working around other people's crappy product is just too much for developers to be reasonably expected to do.
So to go with your example, say the electricity on one floor of your house goes out after the plumber came, and the plumber explains that it seems the incompetent ass that wired your house didn't bother running a negative line to that floor, but just twisted the negatives to a copper water line (which the plumber had to replace). This is not really the plumber's fault, and the plumber wouldn't reasonably let himself be held accountable for the bad result, but would tell you you need to go and bitch to the incompetent that ripped you off with the shoddy work in the first place.
A self-respecting developer will only fill up his own code base with ugly hacks to accommodated other poorly written programs to a certain point before he tells his users to bark up another tree.
My gut reaction is the same, but at the end of the day, linux users' lives would be a lot easier if we have 10-30% market share on the desktop.
Why? Just because at that point we would have decent hardware support, games would be ported, Netflix would run on linux, and people would be aware to not use proprietary formats to exchange data.
But I agree, my gut reaction is that if it works for me, I don't care what other people use. And I'm sure as hell not going to make the mistake of evangelizing for OSS and then get stuck supporting it indefinitely.
I know this is gonna be taken as flame-bait but I love Ubuntu for that good-ole random, apparently routine update results in random breakage gig.
To be fair or course this is typical for any software that tries to stay cutting edge and push updates as soon as they come out: Updates inevitably break shit, if you like things to work all the time, don't update unless you need to.
What did I say that was wrong?
I merely pointed out that we don't need a conspiracy theory to account for general price alignment.
In fact that is the conclusion you reached:
If they all pick option A, laissez-faire paradise ensues with great value to customers, but not so great value to investors. If they all pick option B, it will look an awful lot like they're colluding, even though they are in fact each making the same rational decision. From what I can tell, they went with option A when the market was still pretty volatile, but nowadays stick with option B most of the time.
. . . they are all figuring out the point that they can continue to screw the customer over without the customer dropping the service completely.
Isn't that the whole idea of a market: Supply and demand?
Customers are willing to pay x for y.
Providers are willing to provide x for y.
Market reaches equilibrium at $x/y.
As I said to the reply above yours: I'm not saying that there is a great deal of competition, I'm merely pointing out that we don't need a conspiracy theory to account for the fact that prices are roughly aligned.
I didn't say there was enough competition, just that
there is some competition in the market.
With minimal competition prices will tend to stabilize.
I was merely pointing out that we don't need a conspiracy theory to explain why the major carries all have prices in the same ballpark.
Tethering the iPhone without the tethering package is--IIRC--already against the TOS.
I think charging for tethering on an account with a monthly limit is a shitty practice but given the way they run the show I think adding the charge on is almost certainly legal.
What if you want a prepaid phone with as cheap service rates as a post paid one?
Nothing is keeping you from getting one: monthly prepaid is generally quite a bit cheaper than contract. Of course the phones suck, but for what you get it can be worth it.
Of course if you are paying by the minute you will be screwed.
They are making the assumption, I think, that intelligent design is a religious view, so the bill is advocating a religious position in universities.
I think their assumption is wrong: ID is not a theological position; if you had to place it in a field it would be philosophy.
This is not to deny that it meshes well with certain religious systems.
I found it interesting that TFheadline talks about creationism--which is a religious position--while the law only mentioned ID which is a philosophical hypothesis.
The teacher can't vindicate himself if someone fabricates an account, i.e., if a kid accuses the teacher of having molested him.
If someone else jumps to the conclusion that he is a paedophile and starts accusing him publicly (maybe he has a high voice and seems to spend an awful lot of time with some of his students outside of class), then he absolutely can vindicate his name, just by suing the person making the statements and waiting for the defendant to come up empty-handed trying to substantiate the claim.
Admittedly sometimes the evidence appears conclusive and the public holds its own opinion, as often happens when people are charged and win in court on technicalities (e.g., the conclusive evidence was illegally obtained and so the judge wouldn't let it be shown to the jury).
But that is an entirely different scenario.
But all of this consideration is off-topic: I'm not defending the person who makes baseless or precipitous claims. I'm defending the person who makes well-founded claims that he can corroborate.
So essentially it is fine to yell about, say, a teacher being a pedophile.
If you have proof--like say, photos--, yes.
Wonder what consequences your actions could've had for the teacher if you had been wrong.
Well, then you would be guilty of libel, and would probably end up regretting having jumped to conclusions without sufficient proof, because he would be in a position to sue you into a cardboard box while in the process of vindicating his name.
Look, nobody is saying that it's right to go around spreading our slightest suspicions as fact. We are just saying that a jury isn't the sole arbiter of truth, and that not everything is libel until a court has decided otherwise.
An accusation such as that is not fact before it has been legally confirmed.
Bullshit. Pure bullshit.
If it is true it is true. And as long as it can be confirmed it isn't libel.
If you shoot someone in front of a crowd and there are multiple clear pictures of you doing it plus dozens of witnesses, do we have to wait for you to be found guilty before you are a murderer and can be called such?
Just because all big media outlets are extremely conservative about making accusations--so they don't have to deal with libel suits--doesn't mean that not being super-paranoid is libel.
Due process is about goverment doling out punishment; Not about the people calling a spade a spade.
I doubt that was the poster's point. 300 min/mo. is not much. Plus for $5 more you can get a LOT more talk time--and a better network--from straighttalk or pageplus
It's not about pageload time. It's about the ability to run JS heavy pages in a non-painful way. It's about running current JS pages faster, and making what is currently too expensive to implement in a browser usable. Just look at the many many JS based tests, games, and demos that are being developed.
I'm not saying that moving computationally heavy things into the browser is a good idea, but it does appear to be where things are headed; Talking about a few ms of pageload time is missing the issue entirely.
Here is a summary of NH law. It does seem pretty severe.
According to this article only two states don't allow recording without consent when there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. From link one, it looks like NH may be one of them.
Slashdot Mirror
no no no, it was quantum insofar as it didn't pass continuously through the intervening numbers
While there is something to what you say about the final user experience being what matters, you are also a little too short sighted. Sometimes working around other people's crappy product is just too much for developers to be reasonably expected to do.
So to go with your example, say the electricity on one floor of your house goes out after the plumber came, and the plumber explains that it seems the incompetent ass that wired your house didn't bother running a negative line to that floor, but just twisted the negatives to a copper water line (which the plumber had to replace). This is not really the plumber's fault, and the plumber wouldn't reasonably let himself be held accountable for the bad result, but would tell you you need to go and bitch to the incompetent that ripped you off with the shoddy work in the first place.
A self-respecting developer will only fill up his own code base with ugly hacks to accommodated other poorly written programs to a certain point before he tells his users to bark up another tree.
I've never in my life maximized a window . . .
I call bull.
function_2() might be a quite completxe chunkof code that no one wants to write.
Image someone posted at Guru3D over a year ago: http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/2577/bild1yk.jpg [imageshack.us] Saying that Windows has no potential for customization is hardly accurate.
rofl. Wow, that was so customized I couldn't even tell it was windows!
That was sarcasm btw.
My gut reaction is the same, but at the end of the day, linux users' lives would be a lot easier if we have 10-30% market share on the desktop.
Why? Just because at that point we would have decent hardware support, games would be ported, Netflix would run on linux, and people would be aware to not use proprietary formats to exchange data.
But I agree, my gut reaction is that if it works for me, I don't care what other people use. And I'm sure as hell not going to make the mistake of evangelizing for OSS and then get stuck supporting it indefinitely.
I know this is gonna be taken as flame-bait but I love Ubuntu for that good-ole random, apparently routine update results in random breakage gig.
To be fair or course this is typical for any software that tries to stay cutting edge and push updates as soon as they come out: Updates inevitably break shit, if you like things to work all the time, don't update unless you need to.
I merely pointed out that we don't need a conspiracy theory to account for general price alignment.
In fact that is the conclusion you reached:
If they all pick option A, laissez-faire paradise ensues with great value to customers, but not so great value to investors. If they all pick option B, it will look an awful lot like they're colluding, even though they are in fact each making the same rational decision. From what I can tell, they went with option A when the market was still pretty volatile, but nowadays stick with option B most of the time.
. . . they are all figuring out the point that they can continue to screw the customer over without the customer dropping the service completely.
Isn't that the whole idea of a market: Supply and demand?
Customers are willing to pay x for y.
Providers are willing to provide x for y.
Market reaches equilibrium at $x/y.
As I said to the reply above yours: I'm not saying that there is a great deal of competition, I'm merely pointing out that we don't need a conspiracy theory to account for the fact that prices are roughly aligned.
there is some competition in the market.
With minimal competition prices will tend to stabilize.
I was merely pointing out that we don't need a conspiracy theory to explain why the major carries all have prices in the same ballpark.
Tethering the iPhone without the tethering package is--IIRC--already against the TOS.
I think charging for tethering on an account with a monthly limit is a shitty practice but given the way they run the show I think adding the charge on is almost certainly legal.
What if you want a prepaid phone with as cheap service rates as a post paid one?
Nothing is keeping you from getting one: monthly prepaid is generally quite a bit cheaper than contract. Of course the phones suck, but for what you get it can be worth it.
Of course if you are paying by the minute you will be screwed.
Tinfoil hat indeed: The fact that the prices are tending to converge just shows that there is some competition in the market.
Yes, but note that the text of the proposed law talks about ID, *NOT* creationism. 6000 years, 7 days, etc. is creationism, not ID.
They are making the assumption, I think, that intelligent design is a religious view, so the bill is advocating a religious position in universities.
I think their assumption is wrong: ID is not a theological position; if you had to place it in a field it would be philosophy.
This is not to deny that it meshes well with certain religious systems.
I found it interesting that TFheadline talks about creationism--which is a religious position--while the law only mentioned ID which is a philosophical hypothesis.
The teacher can't vindicate himself if someone fabricates an account, i.e., if a kid accuses the teacher of having molested him.
If someone else jumps to the conclusion that he is a paedophile and starts accusing him publicly (maybe he has a high voice and seems to spend an awful lot of time with some of his students outside of class), then he absolutely can vindicate his name, just by suing the person making the statements and waiting for the defendant to come up empty-handed trying to substantiate the claim.
Admittedly sometimes the evidence appears conclusive and the public holds its own opinion, as often happens when people are charged and win in court on technicalities (e.g., the conclusive evidence was illegally obtained and so the judge wouldn't let it be shown to the jury).
But that is an entirely different scenario.
But all of this consideration is off-topic: I'm not defending the person who makes baseless or precipitous claims. I'm defending the person who makes well-founded claims that he can corroborate.
So essentially it is fine to yell about, say, a teacher being a pedophile.
If you have proof--like say, photos--, yes.
Wonder what consequences your actions could've had for the teacher if you had been wrong.
Well, then you would be guilty of libel, and would probably end up regretting having jumped to conclusions without sufficient proof, because he would be in a position to sue you into a cardboard box while in the process of vindicating his name.
Look, nobody is saying that it's right to go around spreading our slightest suspicions as fact. We are just saying that a jury isn't the sole arbiter of truth, and that not everything is libel until a court has decided otherwise.
An accusation such as that is not fact before it has been legally confirmed.
Bullshit. Pure bullshit.
If it is true it is true. And as long as it can be confirmed it isn't libel.
If you shoot someone in front of a crowd and there are multiple clear pictures of you doing it plus dozens of witnesses, do we have to wait for you to be found guilty before you are a murderer and can be called such?
Just because all big media outlets are extremely conservative about making accusations--so they don't have to deal with libel suits--doesn't mean that not being super-paranoid is libel.
Due process is about goverment doling out punishment; Not about the people calling a spade a spade.
I doubt that was the poster's point. 300 min/mo. is not much. Plus for $5 more you can get a LOT more talk time--and a better network--from straighttalk or pageplus
256 kbps is more than enough for usable two-way voice. As long as no one is on bittorrent at the same time.
It's not about pageload time. It's about the ability to run JS heavy pages in a non-painful way. It's about running current JS pages faster, and making what is currently too expensive to implement in a browser usable. Just look at the many many JS based tests, games, and demos that are being developed.
I'm not saying that moving computationally heavy things into the browser is a good idea, but it does appear to be where things are headed; Talking about a few ms of pageload time is missing the issue entirely.
Yeah, what do they mean "first look"? I--and a lot of others--had been using Chrome 10 for weeks.
Lastly, you could just make up your own language!
Thanks for the idea!
I'll remember next time I have to use GV to call myself about something sensitive.
relevant law
Here is a summary of NH law. It does seem pretty severe. According to this article only two states don't allow recording without consent when there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. From link one, it looks like NH may be one of them.